BERSIH: Leaders must watch their words

 L to R: Saari Sungib, Ronnie, Wan Azizah, Dr Syed Azman and Yap Swee Seng were talking to Aleyasak Hamid, 31. He was pushed, kicked and thrown into the police truck by a uniform police at Jalan Tun Perak (near Dataran Merdeka) on Saturday’s peaceful gathering of 100,000 organised by BERSIH. His left leg was broken badly and he needed at least 3 to 6 minths to recover according to his doctor.

This is a solid proof of police brutalities on “Yellow Walkers” on Saturday.

The IGP and the PM must apologise to Sdr Aleyasak Hamid for the brutalities. BERSIH will get a lawyer to assist Sdr Aleyasak Hamid to bring the culprits to courts.

I told the press this afternoon that that all political leaders and police officers must watch their words in future. I said that PM Abdullah and the KL CPO who uttered harsh words before the peaceful gatherings {such as ” Saya pantang dicabar”( I hate being challenged) ; ” tindakan keras akan diambil (harsh actions will be taken)} would have influenced the police officers in the ground to act violently and therefor they must be held responsible for Aleyasak’s injury.

Before visit Aleyasak in Datuk Keramat, Sivarasa , Dr Syed Azman and I went to the Commercial Crime Department in Bukit Perdana , Jalan Datuk Onn to give our statements on BERSIH. We were called up by the police based on three police reports against BERSIH. Since all three reports were made on the same day i.e. Oct 25, and citing similar grounds( BERSIH is unregistered) , we believe the action was orchestrated by our political foes.

In my statement, I said that BERSIH is a coalition and therefore the question of not registered as a society does not arise. I gave the Coalition for Peace (Aman Malaysia) as an example.

三人同日不同地点举报
净选盟疑有人幕后操纵
■日期/Nov 15, 2007   ■时间/04:24:14 pm
■新闻/家国风云   ■作者/Merdekareview 曾薛霏
           

【本刊曾薛霏撰述】干净与公平选举联盟(Bersih,净选盟)的三名代表今天到武吉阿曼警察总部商业罪案调查组录口供,才知道有三名公众人士曾于1025日在雪州三个不同地点报案,宣称担心1110日举行的“万人诉求公平选举和平大集会”将引发混乱;不过,净选盟发现三份报案书的内容和语法相近,怀疑慕后有人操纵。

武吉阿曼警察总部商业罪案调查组早前传召净选盟的四名秘书处成员今天录口供,其中三人今天到案时,该组助理警监安然(ACP Amran)向他们出示三份报案书,并说警方是根据这三份报案书调查上周六举行的大集会。

这三份报案书是由两名巫裔一名印裔1025日在雪兰莪州不同地点投报;由于三份报案书不但在同一天报案,而且内容和语法相近,因此怀疑幕后有人操纵报案。

被传召录口供的人民公正党全国副主席西华拉沙Sivarasa Rasiah,左图说:“警方出示三份报案书给我们看,令人惊讶的是报案书的内容和语法很接近,而且都在10月25日同一天投报。”

当记者指出民众报案时,大集会尚未举行,西华拉沙笑说:“是啊,报案书的写法是,担心这场集会将引起混乱。”

由于如今的话题焦点已转移到净选盟的游行上,反而忽略了净选盟的选举改革诉求,西华拉沙一再重申,净选盟号召游行是要行使自由集会的权利及推动公平和干净的选举,不应转移焦点。

民主行动党非政府组织事务秘书刘天球(右图)表示:“净选盟的目标只有一个,就是要干净和公平的选举制度;我们可以从很多例子看到,选举委员会本身不中立,譬如,选委会最近没有通知怡保东区国会议员林吉祥,搬进了万名新选民进入该选区,而且其中三千人是军警我们知道,怡保东区并没有军营,也没有新的警察局,何来那么多军警投票?”

此外,刘天球也指出,在2004年大选时,选委会临时在雪兰莪州延长两小时投票时间,乃违法决策

净选盟的四大诉求为:一、采用不褪色油墨;二、废除军警投票,因为缺乏透明度;三、清理选民册;四、公平使用媒体。目前选委会只答应在来届大选采用不褪色油墨。上周六的“万人诉求公平选举和平大集会”,四万至五万人共同步行到国家皇宫,呈交备忘录给国家元首,请求国家元首行使宪法权力,在选制改革完成之前,不解散国会。

调查净选盟是否非法组织

今早10时,净选盟秘书处三位成员人民公正党副主席西华拉沙(Sivarasa Rasiah)、回教党中委赛阿兹曼(Syed Azman)和民主行动党中委刘天球,由各自代表律师苏廉德兰(N.Surendran)、张国伟及尤斯马迪(Yusmadi Yusoff)陪同到武吉阿曼警察总部商业罪案调查组录口供,他们分别由该组助理警监安然盘问。安然也告诉他们,警方将援引《1966社团法令》第42条调查净选盟是不是合法组织。

1966年社团法令》(Societies Act 1966)第42条款阐明,任何管理或协助经营非法组织人,罪成成立可被判监禁不超过年或罚款不超过千元或两者兼施。

西华拉沙录口供后,在警察总部外对记者说,他录口供时向警方汇报净选盟的资料和活动,并重申净选盟是合法的。

他说:“净选盟成立以后,其运作都非常具有透明度,如果任何人想要知道净选盟的资讯,都可以通过净选盟的网站查知。指净选盟乃非法联盟指控并无根据而且净选盟也不是我国第一个联盟,例如废除内安法令联盟GMI),还有前首相倡立的‘马来西亚和平联盟(Malaysians for Peace)。”

净选盟将于本周六推介“黄色星期六”(Yellow Saturday),呼吁人民每周六穿戴黄色,继续支持选举制度改革诉求。

 

Police quiz Bersih leaders
Soon Li Tsin
Nov 15, 07 6:53pm
Malaysiakini
Three Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections (Bersih) leaders were quizzed on the legality of the organisation during their meeting with the Commercial Crimes Department in Kuala Lumpur today.PKR vice-president Sivarasa Rasiah, DAP NGO bureau chief Ronnie Liu and PAS central committee member Dr Syed Azman Nawawi – all of whom are Bersih committee members – were questioned for an hour.

Contacted later, Sivarasa said they were asked on the status of the coalition based on several police reports that were lodged on Oct 25.

“One of them was by a Rela (volunteer corp) officer who said that the rally organised by Bersih (last Saturday) could endanger the public,” he related.

The three Bersih leaders met investigating officer ASP Amran Jusin at about 10.30am after receiving notices from the police two days ago.

Another Bersih leader PAS vice-president Mohamad Sabu was not feeling well and did not attend the questioning session.

The meeting was the committee’s first after a series of postponements.

Just like Peace Malaysia

Sivarasa said they were asked to explain what Bersih is about and the police officers had tried to gather more information about the rally.

“I told them a coalition is just a body made up of many other organisations and parties. Also, if they wanted more information about Bersih, they can visit the website.

“I explained by giving examples like the Peace Malaysia coalition started by (Education Minister) Hishammuddin Hussein. It’s a not about the people in it but the campaign message,” he said.

Peace Malaysia is an Umno Youth-led coalition of NGOs, youth bodies, political parties, students, professionals and others with the common goal of pursuing world peace in the wake of the Iraq war. 

Bersih – launched in November 2006 – is a coalition of five political parties and 67 civil society groups campaigning for electoral reforms.

Sivarasa, Azman and Liu were interrogated by different officers in separate rooms. They were represented by lawyers N Surendran, Jonson Chong and Yusmadi Yusoff.

Surendran later told the press that Bersih was being investigated under Section 42 of the Societies Act whereby office-bearers of an unlawful society maybe subjected to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine not exceeding RM15,000 or both.

About 30 supporters had gathered at the Commercial Crimes Department located on Bukit Perdana carrying banners and placards.

The weekend gathering organised by Bersih saw some 40,000 people taking to the streets.

SPECIAL REPORT: Bersih’s Nov 10 mass rally

商業罪案調查組
向淨選盟3成員錄口供

SinChew Daily
updated:2007-11-15 18:14:41 MYT

(吉隆坡訊)武吉阿曼商業罪案調查組已開始對乾淨與公平選舉聯盟(Bersih)進行調查,並在今日(週四,1115日)早上傳召3名反對黨領袖錄取口供。

這3人是人民公正黨副主席西華拉沙、民主行動黨全國中委劉天球和回教黨中委賽阿茲曼。他們於早上10時35分在3名律師和支持者陪同下,到拿督翁路的商業罪案調查總部錄取口供,前後約1個小時。

西華拉沙和劉天球過後對記者說,他們受傳召主要是有人曾在10月25日分別向吉隆坡3間警局包括蕉賴警局報案,指乾淨與公平選舉聯盟是一個非法組織,而11月10日主辦的大集會可能會引起混亂,因此,警方已援引社團法令42條文調查。

他們說,他們告訴了查案警官安南助理警監有關乾淨與公平選舉聯盟的地位與角色,乾淨與公平選舉聯盟是在去年11月由70個團體包括政黨和非政府組織組成,所有活動都是公開的。

他們強調,乾淨與公平選舉聯盟是由多個註冊團體和政黨組成的聯盟,沒有招收個人會員,因此無需註冊,有團體才要註冊。

西華拉沙和劉天球也指出,乾淨與公平選舉聯盟將從這個周六開始,每逢星期六展開“黃色星期六運動”。 (星洲日報•2007.11.15)


 

Hawker: Police broke my knee during rally

Fauwaz Abdul Aziz
Nov 15, 07 12:27pm
Malaysiakini
Aleyasak Hamid Ali Hassan, a pisang goreng seller, offers incontrovertible proof that police had used excessive force in dispersing the Bersih rally for electoral reform in Kuala Lumpur last Saturday. A bystander whose curiosity got the better of him, his left knee was broken and crushed “by police officers” in the crackdown on protesters gathering in the vicinity of Masjid Jamek.”I just wanted to see – to observe – this rally that people had been talking about. I wasn’t wearing yellow that day, I was wearing black, and it never even crossed my mind to participate in the rally,” said Aleyasak, 31, who lives in Kajang, Selangor.”I also never imagined I would end up with a knee smashed by those who are supposed to be protecting the people against violence.”

Bersih – a polls watchdog coalition of 67 NGOs and five political parties – organised the rally and march to the national palace to submit a memorandum to the King’s representative. Some 40,000 people took part despite prior threats of action by both the police and cabinet ministers.

Aleyasak, – who disclaims any membership or affiliation to NGOs and political parties – was among dozens who took the brunt of a crackdown on what the police described as an illegal assembly after refusing to approve the organisers’ application for a permit.

He spoke to Malaysiakini yesterday, barely an hour after being discharged from Hospital Kuala Lumpur (HKL).

Grimacing in pain with every movement of his leg, Aleyasak related his ordeal while his wife, Maryam Jameela Megat Mohd Yusof, sat by his side.

“I had read about the Bersih gathering a month ago in the newspapers. As my mother-in-law was holding a Hari Raya open house on Saturday evening, we decided to drive around as a family to see what was going on,” he said.

“While caught in a traffic jam, we saw that the people demonstrating at Masjid Jamek were peaceful – they had nothing in their hands. So, I decided to get down from the car at about 3.30pm at the corner of Jalan Tun Perak and Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman to watch them from afar.”

Popping sound

Barely 10 minutes after his wife drove off to her mother’s house in nearby Kampung Baru, riot police took over the area in front of Masjid Jamek.

“A group of protestors near Masjid Jamek ran towards City Hall (in Jalan Raja Laut). I saw a number of police officers chasing then. They were all running towards where I happened to be standing.

“People were yelling ‘Run! Run!’ so I got scared and turned to run as well.”

Aleyasak did not get very far. After a few metres, he lost his footing on the slippery rain-washed pavement and fell face forward on the pedestrian walkway.

Seconds later, he was set upon by four to six uniformed police officers.

While several police held his head to the ground, another officer stepped on Aleyasak’s left leg which had folded at the knee behind him.

“He was applying his full weight on it. I heard my knee cracking, then, I head a ‘pop’ sound. I knew right away it was broken,” said Aleyasak.

Ordered to stand up, he told the police officers that his leg was broken. Instead of being carried, he was subjected to foul language and told to walk unaided towards a police truck waiting nearby.

He said: “I was told ‘Why should we carry you? Are you so special to receive that kind of treatment? You’re just a nuisance!’.

“One officer – I don’t remember any of the names or numbers on their uniforms – kicked my injured leg and it slammed against part of the truck. Another detainee already in the truck felt sorry for me and helped me to get into the vehicle.”

About a dozen detainees were taken to the police contingent headquarters. Almost immediately on arrival, Aleyasak said a St John’s ambulance took him to HKL where he was admitted.

Following surgery on Monday, Aleyasak was told it would take three to six months for his knee to heal. However, he will have to wait a full year before doing any sports activities or exercises.

“I won’t be able to work for the next few months in my condition,” he said, appearing resigned to the situation.

‘Do something’

On the advice of friends, Aleyasak filed a police report at the HKL police beat-base, providing details of the incident.

He wants at least an apology from those responsible for the injury, and has not ruled out legal action against the police or government.

“I haven’t done anything wrong. I do not want to cause any trouble. I am not a member of any political party. I’m not against the police. We need to them to maintain security,” he said.

“But I want something done. Anything… but something. At this point, even just an apology from the police officers who did this to me would be good.”

Echoing this, Maryam, 29, said her husband’s injury has jeopardised their livelihood and meager earnings.

A tuition teacher, she said she was shocked and incredulous when she found out what Aleyasak had gone through.

“We are ordinary people. We have nothing to do with politics. Why was he treated that way? Even if the police were cracking down on protestors – my husband was just a spectator – there must be some limit to what they can do,” she said.

She said their children – aged six and two – have been curious about why their father has been injured.

“We don’t want them confused by telling them that the police were the ones that did this to their father,” said Maryam.

She was also incensed by those who had denied that any violence or excessive force had been used by police.

“I feel sad and angry. We want justice done. You can’t do this to people,” she said.

4 Responses to “BERSIH: Leaders must watch their words”

  1. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    Observing the Bersih rally

    Yeo Yang Poh
    Former bar Council Chairman

    Nov 15, 07 12:23pm
    Malaysiakini

    The Bar Council organised some 40 lawyers to observe the Bersih rally last Saturday and to provide legal assistance if needed. I was one of the observers.

    Driving from Johor Bahru, I arrived at Sungai Besi at about 10 am. I was then caught in a 6km crawl that took me one-and-a-half hours. It was due to a roadblock set up by the police. As I inched towards the roadblock, I observed that no car was being stopped or questioned (for the duration when I was there). The only outcome, as far as I could see, was that traffic was slowed down to a turtle’s pace, causing a massive jam. I wondered what the real purpose of the roadblock was.

    I was at the Bar Council building at 2pm. Roads leading to Dataran Merdeka had been cordoned off. There was heavy police presence. I noticed groups of persons everywhere, who appeared to be waiting to take part in the rally.

    At Masjid Jamek

    It was raining heavily. I walked towards the Masjid Jamek station, where I was to be initially stationed. When I arrived at Jalan Tun Perak (corner of Burger King), I saw thousands gathered in the street, trying to move towards Dataran. They were stopped by FRU barricades. There was shouting of slogans from time to time. It went on for a while, and then the police started using water canons to force the crowd back. Moments later, tear gas was fired into the re-gathered crowd. I did not hear any warning issued. However, I was some distance away from the barricade. Persons at the front would be better able to confirm. The crowd dispersed around 2:45 pm (later re-gathered at Istana Negara).

    I observed the following at Masjid Jamek:

    (a) The crowd was peaceful. I did not see any untoward disturbances, unruly or violent behaviour on the part of the participants.

    (b) There were other people around, who happened to be at the location, and who were not there to take part in the march.

    (c) The only reason I could see for the use of water canons and tear gas was to prevent a peaceful gathering, and not because its participants had caused any chaos, riot or violence. The crowd was orderly, but became (naturally) less so when the police employed water canons and tear gas.

    (d) The use of water canons and tear gas had also affected bystanders and persons present who were not part of the rally.

    (e) The crowd, when running away from the tear gas and chemically laced water, was amazingly relatively unchaotic under the circumstances. I did not see any pushing or shoving, even when the participants were running for cover.

    (f) I did not personally witness any beatings perpetrated by the police, although I heard accounts of the same. One journalist ran to where I was standing, and told me that he had been assaulted by the police. His right eye was swollen.

    At Istana Negara

    I walked to Istana Negara from Pasar Seni, together with four other lawyers. On the way, I saw many people walking there too (taking different routes). It was drizzling.

    When we arrived at Istana Negara, a huge crowd had already gathered there, and more people continued to arrive to join it. There was again heavy police presence. A delegation of the participants presented a memorandum to a representative of the palace. A short speech was made. Police then asked the crowd to disperse, which the crowd did peacefully, at about 4 pm.

    Unlike at Masjid Jamek, the police at Istana Negara did not use water canons or tear gas. I did not witness any violence perpetrated by the police there.

    At Istana Negara, I observed the following:

    (g) The gathering was peaceful. Order was kept throughout.

    (h) I did not see any incident of unruliness or violence, on anyone’s part.

    (i) The police showed commendable restraint, including allowing the huge crowd reasonable time to disperse in the end. Such restraint helped keep the gathering peaceful throughout.

    Acknowledgment for the Bar

    We were wearing “observer” tags. Wherever we went, our presence and our role were warmly acknowledged and appreciated by the participants. Many of them shook my hand as they walked past me. Others smiled and nodded appreciatively. A few of them loudly said: “Hidup peguam”!

    The police, too, were cooperative with us.

    The Bar should know that its contributions to society have not gone unnoticed. This should spur us on to contribute more in future.

    Credit for the success in carrying out our functions as observers on that day must go to all members of the team of dedicated and energetic lawyers led by Edmund Bon and coordinated by Rajen. Many of them stayed behind that night as well, to provide legal assistance to those who were arrested.

    As I obviously only witnessed parts of the proceedings that afternoon, my observations must of course be read along with the reports and observations of the others.

    Some conclusions from my observations

    From my observations, I draw the following conclusions:

    (1) The participants of the Bersih rally on Nov 10 were disciplined. They evidently came with the desire for a peaceful assembly in order to publicly vocalise and display their views, and thereafter to leave peacefully.

    (2) As far as I am aware, the gathering at Istana Negara was incident free, compared with that at Masjid Jamek. I attribute this important difference to the differences in approach adopted at the two places. At Istana Negara, the police had allowed the gathering to proceed peacefully, while keeping watch on any unruliness. It did proceed peacefully, and ended no longer than was necessary (without incident). In contrast, the police at Masjid Jamek tried to forcibly deny the crowd’s desire to proceed with a peaceful assembly, which led to unnecessary violence, prolonged the duration of the assembly, and reduced its orderliness.

    (3) If, for example, the police had allowed the gathering to take place at Dataran, there would have been far less inconvenience to the traffic and the activities in the areas surrounding Dataran, than what was caused that afternoon by the denial of that opportunity.

    (4) What transpired on Nov 10 clearly showed that peaceful assemblies are an easily achievable reality in Malaysia, when the police refrain from thwarting the people’s legitimate desire to exercise their basic human and constitutional rights of the freedom of assembly and expression. The reasons why the authorities have almost always disallowed public rallies, demonstrations and marches (that are not sanctioned by the government or are not in line with its views) appear to lie not with any concerns for order and security, but elsewhere.

    (5) Actions taken by the police (following the wishes of the authorities) to prevent public assemblies often create much more inconvenience and ill will for the public, than would such peaceful assemblies, if permitted and properly facilitated instead. Public order and security will be better served if the police channel their energy to helping to maintain peace and order during public assemblies, rather than to employing harsh measures to stop them from happening.

    (6) Participants of public assemblies, on their part, must at all times maintain a high level of discipline, so that such events may be peacefully and successfully carried out.

    Peaceful assemblies in a just society

    Some ministers and politicians have said that there is no need for public assembly in a country that conducts elections. By their argument, it would follow that democracy is complete as long as citizens are allowed to vote once in a few years. Voting in a government would amount to giving it a blank cheque to do as it pleases (since it has “obtained the mandate of the people”). If anyone is dissatisfied, he or she can only wait for the next occasion of voting to express dissatisfaction. The ballot becomes the only permissible means of expression.

    The absurdity of that argument is obvious. It is nothing more than a crude political exercise in insulting the people’s intelligence.

    The pursuit of equality notwithstanding, all societies are (to a smaller or larger extent) organised in a way that favours the rich and powerful, who have the ability and the resources to change things or make things happen to better suit themselves.

    Those who are far less fortunate, and those without wealth or power, possess only the desire to have their plight heard and known by as many others as possible, and the hope that with that things may change for the better for them. Public assemblies give these persons an effective voice, since other less demonstrative and more intimate channels of lobbying in our politics-driven world are not available to them. Suppressing such voice, and dashing such hope, will only lead to increasing oppression and destabilisation.

    In a true democracy, in order for stability and prosperity to last, people must be allowed to express their views freely, and to choose the manner in which they wish to do so, including choosing a public manner by way of peaceful assembly or procession. Allowing the weak to publicly speak out against the powerful is one of the hallmarks of a democracy. Smothering the voice of the minority is the trademark of dictatorship.

    In political reality, however, the public expression of views by persons in large numbers, especially if coupled with a free media, is often a real threat, not to public order or security, but to the continuing maintenance of control by those currently in power.

    There is no valid reason of principle to deprive citizens of their right of peaceful assembly. But there are powerful political reasons why those in control would want to do exactly that. These reasons are, in truth, self-serving, though they wear the false name of public order or security.

    ——————————————————————————–
    YEO YANG POH is former Bar Council chairman

  2. ronnieliutiankhiew Says:

    淨盟被指非法組織
    警傳召3反對黨領袖

    GuangMing Daily
    updated:2007-11-15 17:46:30 MYT

    
    (吉隆坡訊)武吉阿曼商業罪案調查組,基於有人於10月25日分別向吉隆坡3間警局包括蕉賴警局報案,指乾淨與公平選舉聯盟(Bersih)是一個非法組織,因此週四早上傳召3名反對黨領袖,即人民公正黨副主席西華拉沙、行動黨全國中委劉天球和回教黨中委賽阿茲曼錄取口供。

    這3名反對黨領袖是於週四早上10點35分,在3名律師和支持者陪同下,到拿督翁路的商業罪案調查總部錄取口供,前後約一個小時。

    西華拉沙和劉天球過後對記者說,警方援引社團法令42條文調查此事。“我們告訴了查案警官安南有關乾淨與公平選舉聯盟的地位與角色。”

    他們聲稱,乾淨與公平選舉聯盟是在去年11月由70個團體包括政黨和非政府組織組成,所有活動都是公開的。“由於沒有招收個人會員,因此無需註冊,只有團體才要註冊。”

    此外,他們也說,往後的每週六,乾淨與公平選舉聯盟將展開“黃色星期六運動”,因此希望人民在該天身穿黃色衣褲、外套或撐著黃色的雨傘出門,以支持這項運動。 (光明日報•2007.11.15)

  3. sampalee Says:

    The process of karma will work itself out.

  4. ronnie Says:

    查大集會騷亂 警傳召淨選盟3人-16th Nov 2007 Oriental Daily

    (吉隆坡15日訊)干淨及公平選舉聯盟(Bersih)的3名代表,包括行動黨中委劉天球、回教黨中委賽阿茲曼及公正黨副主席西華拉薩,今日被傳召前往武吉安曼商業罪案調查總部,錄取口供。

    由于警方于日前分別接獲3宗投報,直指該聯盟屬非法組織,及上週六所進行的大集會引起騷亂等問題,因此警方今日特傳召該聯盟代表劉天球等人,前往錄取口供,協助警方進行調查工作。

    3人在各自代表律師陪同下,于今早10時35分步入武吉安曼商業罪案調查組錄取口供,而數名支持者也抵達警局外,高舉布條寫著「訴求干淨及公平的選舉活動」等字樣;3人在12時10分步出警局。

    劉天球表示,警方是在1966年社團法令第42非法聚集進行大型活動條文下,展開調查。

    稱聯盟不需註冊

    在錄取口中時,警方詢問他們有關干淨及公平選舉聯盟的作用、目的及是否有註冊等問題,但劉天球強調,干淨及公平選舉聯盟並非組織,而是聯盟,聯盟是不需要註冊的。

    「分別有來自70個合法註冊組織的代表,包括非政府組織等人參與選舉改革和平集會。」

    此外,他說道,該聯盟將會把往后每個週六定為「黃色星期六」,他們將穿上黃色衣物,或佩帶黃色物件以示支持。

    「希望公眾不要因著我們此次被傳召而轉移焦點,繼續將焦點集中在選舉改革上。」

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: