Gan Kim Yong says “No” to restoring CPF for older workers
October 25th, 2009 | 
Author: From our correspondent
Singapore’s Manpower Minister Mr Gan Kim Yong has rejected calls to restore the CPF for older workers after the age of 50 “in order not to disadvantage these workers in the competition for jobs.”
“If we were to raise the CPF now or restore the CPF for older workers, it may adversely affect the competitiveness of the workers and the competitiveness of companies,” Mr Gan said.
Currently, Singaporeans above the age of 50 have their employers’ CPF contributions cut from 14.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent.
A disgruntled Singaporean by the name of Kumar wrote in to the ST Forum lately expressing dismay at the cut:
“The cut is steep – from 14.5 per cent to 10.5 per cent – and affects older Singaporeans like me drastically.
Not only must I still pay off my debt to the Housing Board for my mortgaged flat on diminished income, but the price hikes are also eating into the rest of my salary,” he wrote.
Mr Kumar’s plight is shared by many Singaporeans in his age group. Many are struggling to pay off their housing mortages and support their families at the same time, leaving them with little savings in their CPF for retirement.
Unfortunately, the plight of these elderly workers are oblivious to multi-millionaire ministers like Mr Gan who continues to stress that adjusting CPF rates would be “counterproductive” as it would create more “rigidity”.
His views were echoed by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who dismissed Singapore’s worsening income gap between the rich and the poor. Mr Lee claimed that it is more important to create jobs for Singaporeans with labor policies which will encourage companies to hire.
Though Singapore’s unemployment rates remain low, many workers, especially those from the lower income group, are struggling to get by with their meager wages in the face of rising costs of living.
This leads to some “abandoning” their parents as they cannot even earn enough to support their own families to which the government has implemented a law to criminalize those who do not support their parents financially, never mind if they have the means to do so.
There is also a dearth of social welfare benefits for elderly Singaporeans whose bulk of their savings are used up in paying the mortage loans of over-priced public housing.
As such, many have no choice but to continue working beyond their retirement ages. Some of them end up scavenging for cardboards in the street or as toilet attendants in order to feed themselves.
Singapore has a public assistance scheme which gives a $330 monthly allowance to the destitute, but one has to have no living kin and medically certified to be permanently unfit to work in order to qualify for the scheme.
While elderly workers are subjected to CPF cuts after the age of 50, Singapore ministers will get a pension on top of their monthly salaries which remain unadjusted when they reach 55 years of age.
Singapore workers are at the losing end at the mercy of big businesses and the government because there are no independent trade unions to represent their interests and they are robbed of their political rights by a series of draconian laws put in place by the ruling party.
The biggest trade union in Singapore – NTUC, is a quasi-government organization headed by a minister. Unlike Hong Kong where workers can gather and protest against their maltreatment easily, a solo protest anywhere in Singapore (except Hong Lim Park) is now considered illegal under a new law passed this year.
With no opposition in parliament to check on the ruling party, Singaporeans will have little choice but to look up to ministers like Gan Kim Yong for “salvation”.
Posted in Editorial
We should also cut Mr Gan’s taxpayers’ funded pension by 50% when he reaches 60.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This makes absolutely no sense. While other progressive governments have to be rigorously certain that the employment laws are non-discriminatory, the PAP government has a law which allows blatant employment discrimination against the elderly workforce. And it is not just the private sector, the civil service is also taking advantage of the elderly workforce LEGALLY.
This is a silly law enacted to be pro-business but the People are told that it is for our own good. While I do not expect Gan Kim Yong to be pro-worker, he and his ministry must be at least stand for fairness – repeal the law!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
shall we cut LKY’s pay?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
QUIT COMPLAINING. USE YOUR VOTE!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
■sian on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 11:07 am
shall we cut LKY’s pay?
LOL. How many employers in Singapore would employ an elderly that is close to 90 years old, and pay him millions??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“If we were to raise the CPF now or restore the CPF for older workers, it may adversely affect the competitiveness of the workers and the competitiveness of companies,” Gan Kim Yong
All this PAP Government cares about is MONEY.
They overload the country with FWs / FTs which depress wages so that Singapore Inc. can remain competitive.
Never mind the citizens’ interest.
It’s a middle finger to you if you are over 50 years old.
The bottom line comes first. Nothing else matters.
As for our PAP Million $$$$ Ministers, they sure know how to take care of themselves well.
1. Elected President SR Nathan – S$3.9 million.
2. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong – S$3.8 million.
3. Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew – S$3.5 million.
4. Senior Minister Goh Chok Thong – S$3.5 million.
5. Senior Minister Prof Jayakumar – S$3.2 million.
6. DPM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng – S$2.9 million.
7. DPM & Defence Minister Teo Chee Hean – $2.9 million
8. Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo – S$2.8 million.
9. National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan – S$2.7 million.
10. PMO Miniser Lim Boon Heng – S$2.7 million.
11. Trade and Industry Minister Lim Hng Kiang – S$2.7 million.
12. PMO Minister Lim Swee Say – S$2.6 million.
13. Environment Minister & Muslim Affairs Minister Dr Yaccob Ibrahim – S$2.6 million.
14. Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan – S$2.6 million.
15. Finance Minister S Tharman – S$2.6 million.
16. Education Minister & 2nd Minister for Defence Dr Ng Eng Hen – S$2.6 million.
17. Community Development Youth and Sports Minister – Dr Vivian Balakrishnan – S$2.5 million.
18. Transport Minister & 2nd Minister for Foreign Affairs Raymond Lim Siang Kiat – S$2.5 million.
19. Law Minister & 2nd Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam – S$2.4 million.
20. Manpower Minister Gan Kim Yong – S$2.2 million.
21. PMO Minister Lim Hwee Hwa – S$2.2 million.
22. Acting ICA Minister – Lui Tuck Yew – S$2.0 million.
23 to 30 = Senior Ministers of State and Ministers of State – each getting between S$1.8 million to S$1.5 million.
Note: 1. The above pay does not include MP allowances, pensions and other sources of incomes.
The salaries the PAP Million $$$$ Minister pay themselves ??
Even the most Junior PAP Minister in Singapore is paid more than US President Barrack Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkle, UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – five of the most developed nations in the world with corrupt free Leaders, larger populations, higher GDPs and bigger problems to solve than our Nbr 1 country of 700 sq km.
Hell, if you look deeper into it, our PAP Junior Ministers are paid twice the salary of US President Obama who earns USD 400,000 per year.
Must be the world’s toughest tough job to be a Singapore Minister.
Really ??
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well that is life!
We have to live within our means
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Adding insult to the wound, the older workers are now going to pay life annualty via their CPF fund – which I am afraid they do not have much left – with PAP contradicting and self-serving policies to make the poor even poorer. Swiss standard of living is just an aspiration that we have been fooled by PAP for decades to vote them in. Thanks for the alternative news that PAP is no different from exNKF and exRenci management.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
On one hand, they encourage the elderly to work longer (work until u cannot) and then on the other hand, they say that you may have to suffer a pay cut.
What message are they trying to send????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dear Singaporean,
The government is a self serving body and has no care for any of us except their big fat pocket.
After serving a good part of our life working hard and contributing to Singapore economy, our service is both ignored or forgotten.
If the government does care for the people, they can dig into their own pocket to top up the difference so that all parties can be happy. It’s a tripartite contribution with the company, the government and the employee. That should make everyone happy.
Step aside Mr. Gan, you are not creative, you bet there are many people who can handle this amicably.
Singapore citizen lets show them the citizen whip. United we stand, one for all and all for one.
Regards,
citzenofSG
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“If we were to raise the CPF now or restore the CPF for older workers, it may adversely affect the competitiveness of the workers and the competitiveness of companies,” Mr Gan said.
Wah lan, what a sweeping statement. The kind of statement that sweeps everything under the rug without bothering to verify whether it has merits or not.
At 50 they have CPF cut. At 60 they have salary cut. KNN.
Whether young or old, every employee has to prove their worth to their employer. If they are not competent, they will be shown the door because few companies can afford to keep deadwood given current business environment. If you have a competent and fully contributing employee aged 50, why penalise him/her through CPF cut? Similarly if you have one aged 60 why penalise through salary cut?
As if such cuts will protect their jobs. As if such cuts will cause employers to give older workers more preference in hiring. They won’t, so why bother???
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There appears to be quite a bit of misunderstanding of how CPF works in reality.
Firstly, there is this misconception that employee contribution is our own money while employer contribution is the boss’s money (aka the more the employer contribution, the better it is for us).
This is not true. There is almost NO difference between employers’ and employees’ contribution! The reason is that at the end of the month, employers only care about how much leave their accounts. They do not care what is the ratio between employers’ vs employees’ contribution, and they do not care whether the money goes to CPF or to take-home pay.
Or to put it in another way. Let’s say the the official pay of a worker is $2000, and the employer vs employee contributions are 14.5% vs 20%. Thus the takehome pay is $1600 and the CPF inflow is $690. If CPF is suddenly abolished one day, the worker will get to take home $2290, as that is the amount employers are willing to fork out.
Notice how in this example, the net effect of CPF is to reduce our take-home pay by about 30%!!
With this in mind, let’s look at the author’s suggestion of restoring employers’ contribution to 14.5%.
Employers only care about how much they are paying, they do not care if the money goes to CPF or to the worker’s take home pay.
If employers’ contributions are increased, employers will adjust by cutting the official pay, in order to end up paying the same amount. Alternatively, they will retrench older workers and hire younger workers for the same pay.
And in the first place, why would we want higher CPF rates when we will not get to see the CPF money in the first place? We should be hoping that CPF rates be as low as possible instead, so that our take-home pay can increase.
I will be the first person to agree if employees’ contributions are cut to zero for everyone. In the short run, our pay appear to decrease as we get less CPF money. But within a few months, the market will adjust, and employers will start paying higher “official” wages to attract talent. The end result is that money that used to go to CPF will go to our take home pay instead.
The dire plight of older workers should be addressed by looking at the labor supply, and also our lax employment laws regarding age discrimination. Raising CPF rates will actually cause more harm than good for our older workers!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Guys,
if PAP still gets more than 55% of vote in the next GE, I think it is time to leave Singapore if you can. If you are still young and under 40 years old, I say leave before PAP treat you worst than shit after you reach 50 years old. It will only get worst.
For me, I am too old to do that now. Hope, I live to see the down fall of PAP. Remember, history has shown that every dynasty regardless of how strong it is will fall. Roman Empire is gone, Tang dynasty is gone. PAP will be gone as well. I hope sooner rather than later.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Scratching my head”,
are the salaries what they get for EACH AND EVERY month they are in power?
The Opposition in parliament needs to question more.
Else, what are they for?
Looks like the elec is gonna be next year or even later.
Many of my friends are beginning to forget issues.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Remember, history has shown that every dynasty regardless of how strong it is will fall.”
Law of nature which abhors stasis ……. while affected parties are naturally reacting to it given enough time
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pay peanuts you’ll get monkeys.
You don’t have to look far, brother. Look around ASEAN then the world at large.
Where did Chen Shiu Biang park the “billions” of Taiwan dollars?
Obama? Please lah. The perks are enough to cost the entire government’s salaries.
The President’s private resort at Camp David, the private Airforce One, etc.
Get real lah. People ain’t stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gan Kim Yong doesn’t know what he is talking about most of the time. Time we voted him out and save taxpayers’s money.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
//Benny
The perks are spend on other people doing the job.
Our ministers salaries are paid to them.
That’s the difference.
And no, you are stupid.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The heart of our government is on how to increase their salary rather than the general well-being of ordinary citizens. To increase their salary, they need to improve the GDP figure to justify or find excuse to further increase in their exceptional salary, not found anywhere in the world. This increase can be at any cost i.e. depressed income of it’s citizen, exceptional high property price, overcrowding, etc because they think the locals are kiasee and do not have the ball to vote them out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
//Benny.
You are stupid because we are not paying peanuts (these ministers’ salaries allow them to consume a tiger a month) and we are getting lousy performance.
An home minister that give out awards to Malaysian police for doing his job.
Not to mentioned the infamous wife of your PM. The fact that she stayed in her position despite losing so much monies is unheard of in the financial world. IT is mockery to Singapore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
//Steve Wu
Goes to show that PAP has no interest in fairness.
They don’t have ideas so they just cut pay of old people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is my sad obseravtion that each incoming “new” Minister to any portfolio always opt for the easy and ‘SAFE’ way out when encountered with socio-political problems.
Why do you think the PM pays you guys so much?Cos’ he expect you(civil servants icluded) to do a good job,not a “safe” job.
So,please don’t let the PM and taxepayers down!
If your job is to find the easiest and”safe” way out,then i think many wouldn’t mind becoming “VW”-voluntary workers-in the
ministries?..with token aloowance!
Let’s be fair as in private sector,if you can’t think out of the box or worse,if you cannot perform,”out you go!”…although
being more humane and a little compassionate,I would not be this harsh if i was lucky enogh to be “boss”.
Why,for instance,we can’t seem to resolve our traffic problem?
Shanghai has multi-tier highways,we keep insisting on increasing ERP to “ease” our highways?
I guess we need to find better ways!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Fine,but lower salary shd imply lower workload.
Older workers still keep their jobs and shd not “be slighted”.
COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS fair enough but easier say than done,we need the protect the dignity of an ageing worker.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I am looking 4 opportunity to remove his head. Lousy person.
If we vote him in for another 4, he will justify to bring in another 1 million people. That will really create kiosk in this country.
All Union Leaders now in the parliament are millionaires.
Yet, the workers slog their ass off to get through day by day.
Is really sad. We need to kill someone to prove we are right.
No more. I had enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well… Does mm… sm… pm… and others ib their lot in the magical older group… getting CPF cuts too…
Or are they… those special breed pigs i/c of Animal Farm breed who after leading their ‘revolution’ wnet a dining and drinking with the fomer farmer and owner of the Farm turned “Animal Farm”??? And so… having THE BEST Of BOTH WORLDS kind of thing!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The government shd be paid at least 1% of the GNP or GDP they make, right? That’s more than their current salaries combined. Singapore boom, they boom. That’s incentivisation.
I’m pleased that the Ministers’ pay in Singapore is transparent.
Elsewhere, for camouflage reasons Ministers have small pay packets but own bungalows, have several cars, travel out on holidyas frequently, have many maids, etc.
You don’t have to look far. Take a look at our Toyo, former Mentri Besar of Selangor (one implicated in DAP’s Teoh’s death). He lives like a KING on his peanut pay.
Singapore can ill afford to ahve that. 44 good years. Without a good pay packet to match the private sectors CEOs we’ll end up having more Teh, Woon, etc.
Let’s keep the best practice. When Singapore makes, they make. YES!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A 4% cut in employer’s cpf, to a person at 50 earning say $1500 a months is $60 x 13 includes bonus is $780 a year is a lot of money.
To a minister who earns over $2 million a year even if he forgoes his cpf it means nothing.
Remember once upon a time someones wife comment $600,000 is just peanuts.So you can imagine how much monies this people have stack away,when 600k is just peanuts to them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Richard Wong
You are not totally right!!!
People who are voted by the peoples must be with the peoples,in good times and in bad.
Why compare our highly regarded tax-payers sponsoored scholars
to unethical people? You have no respect for them whatsoever!
Let’s compare them with good and respected people,for example,
HongKong’s Donald Tsang.
Cheif Executive Tsang,who was credited for protecting HongKongers’ invesments in the HKSE during the ASIAN FINANCIAL
CRISIS when he was Finance Secretary,recently cut his own salary in line with the poor economy.This is the more appropriate and respectful comparison.
Now this is a fine example!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Richard Wong on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 11:13 am
Here is another school of thought from another successful politician on money and politics
Whoever decides to dedicate their life to politics knows that earning money isn’t the top priority.
Angela Merkel – Money – Life – Priorities – Earnings – Politicians
If you want to be constructive in politics, the less you look back, the better. If you do look back, then it can only be to learn for yourself through the events that have taken place.
Angela Merkel – Politicians – Learning
We must never forget our responsibilities as politicians to our country and its citizens. We must always remain humble before our people.
Angela Merkel – Politicians – Responsibility – People
To be serious, if we were only interested in earning big money then a politician would have to go and work in industry.
Angela Merkel – Money – Earnings – Politicians – Jobs
http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/politician-quotes.htm
YOU MIGHT WANT TO KNOW THAT MERKEL WAS RE-ELECTED RECENTLY DESPITE THE ECONOMIC TRAUMA CONFRONTING THE GERMAN ECONOMY.
I believe she was the first woman Chancellor elected in German history.
She is there for her country – NOT FOR THE MONEY !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Benny said “Pay peanuts you’ll get monkeys.”
But what if you paid diamonds and still get monkeys?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Altrusim is DEAD. It’s only in story books. Wake up lah!
I’d rather have high paying ministers to give us another 44 good years of prosperity (relative to the region & world at large) than charlatans (whom we can’t control later) that will do this tiny vulnetrable city state in to NO RETURN.
Don’t play . . play.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
#plato columbine on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 10:28 pm
“are the salaries what they get for EACH AND EVERY month they are in power?”
The salaries shown for the PAP Ministers are based on per annum basis, excluding other benefits.
Similarly, the salary of Prez Obama at USD 400k is based on per annum.
Evidently, even the most Junior PAP Ministers in Singapore are paid more than twice that of Prez Obama… as well as the Leaders of France, Germany, The UK and Austraila.
These are Leaders of 5 of the most developed nations in the world with corrupt-free Governments, bigger populations, better economics / social justice, higher GDPs and probably more problems to solve than our very own.
Should our PAP Ministers, including the Junior Ministers, be paid more than twice the salaries of any of the Leaders of the 5 biggest nations in the world ??
Are they in Government to serve the people / nation or they in it for the money ??
Is any of the PAP Ministers job in Singapore more complex / difficult than Barrack Obama’s, Nicholas Sarkozy’s, Angela Merkel’s, Gordon Brown’s, Kevin Rudd’s ??
The PAP Government’s policies in recent years are so insensitive, heartless and suppressive that it make you wonder if the $ Million salaries they receive have made them numb to the reality of the lives of ordinary citizens they are supposed to serve…
PS. If we follow MM Lee’s arguement that PAP Ministers should be paid ‘market-rate’ to attract them into Government, we could also say that Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown and Ruud could easily earn much, much more than what they are paid today as Leaders of their countries.
http://www.yeocheowtong.com/Salaries.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.5200498.html
http://www.salary-money.com/barack-obama-salary-400000.php
http://www.salary-money.com/nicolas-sarkozy-salary-euro-19331.php
http://www.paywizard.org/main/VIPPaycheck/VIPpaycheckWomen/famous-women-salaries/vip_details?id=angela-merkel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/jun/05/gordonbrowns5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Australia
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
#plato columbine on Sun, 25th Oct 2009 10:28 pm
“are the salaries what they get for EACH AND EVERY month they are in power?”
The salaries shown for the PAP Ministers are based on per annum basis, excluding other benefits.
Similarly, the salary of Prez Obama at USD 400k is based on per annum.
Evidently, even the most Junior PAP Ministers in Singapore are paid more than twice that of Prez Obama… as well as the Leaders of France, Germany, The UK and Austraila.
These are Leaders of 5 of the most developed nations in the world with corrupt-free Governments, bigger populations, better economics / social justice, higher GDPs and probably more problems to solve than our very own.
Should our PAP Ministers, including the Junior Ministers, be paid more than twice the salaries of any of the Leaders of the 5 biggest nations in the world ??
Are they in Government to serve the people / nation or they in it for the money ??
Is any of the PAP Ministers job in Singapore more complex / difficult than Barrack Obama’s, Nicholas Sarkozy’s, Angela Merkel’s, Gordon Brown’s, Kevin Rudd’s ??
The PAP Government’s policies in recent years are so insensitive, heartless and suppressive that it make you wonder if the $ Million salaries they receive have made them numb to the reality of the lives of ordinary citizens they are supposed to serve…
PS. If we follow MM Lee’s arguement that PAP Ministers should be paid ‘market-rate’ to attract them into Government, we could also say that Obama, Sarkozy, Merkel, Brown and Ruud could easily earn much, much more than what they are paid today as Leaders of their countries.
http://www.salary-money.com/barack-obama-salary-400000.php
http://www.salary-money.com/nicolas-sarkozy-salary-euro-19331.php
http://www.paywizard.org/main/VIPPaycheck/VIPpaycheckWomen/famous-women-salaries/vip_details?id=angela-merkel
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2007/jun/05/gordonbrowns5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Australia
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
#Richard Wong on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 11:13 am
“”Elsewhere, for camouflage reasons Ministers have small pay packets but own bungalows, have several cars, travel out on holidyas frequently, have many maids, etc.
You don’t have to look far. Take a look at our Toyo, former Mentri Besar of Selangor (one implicated in DAP’s Teoh’s death). He lives like a KING on his peanut pay.”"
———————————————————–
Please refer to my reply to : #plato columbine
The PAP Government claims that Singapore is a corrupt-free, developed, first world country with a GDP to match the best of the West… and that is part of the reason why we should pay our PAP Ministers world class salaries.
So, is it fair to ask that you compare our PAP Ministers’ salaries to those in comparable, corrupt-free, developed, first world countries and not to those in 3rd world countries or, worse, a Mentri Besar of Selangor state.
Be objective.
Any comparisons made should be like to like, ‘apples to apples’ and not “apples to durians”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
//Scratching My Head
There is no under table ‘corruption’ in the little paradise south of Johor; but over table ‘corruption’, i.e. legislated schemes to increase government revenues and ‘redistributed’ among the ruling class, awarding themselves huge salary. And also, one of reasons cited for awarding the ministers million dollar salary is to keep them away from corruption; strange isn’t it? The egg or the chicken?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
##x12381 on Mon, 26th Oct 2009 6:46 pm
Yeah. You’re right about this over table thingy.
They are so honest people that they stress over and over again that everything they do is with ‘transparency’…
I don’t remember any of our dear PAP Ministers mentioning they were going to give themselves a pay rise of 60 p/c when they were campaigning for the 2006 GE. Do you ??
It was only after the GE that they came out with this special Xmas present for themselves.
The koyok man in the pasar malam is probably more transparent and honest, if we have to make a comparison.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/09/world/asia/09iht-sing.3.5200498.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
i just dont understand how someone who works for the people can just determine their pay just like that..
and get away with it somemore!?!?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
if you guys seriously think you are so smart, then you should lead the country and see how well it fares. if you do succeed, then congratulations. if not, then please wake up face reality. that is, they are doing their best. the reason why (which has been stated before) their pay is so high is to prevent corruption. would you like your country to be led by corrupt leaders who embezzle money? if you pay them enough money, they would not bother to do so. how many people out there take advantage of their power over people, you would never know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0