'Why should Valuecap borrow from EPF?'
Syed Shahir Syed Mohamud, MTUC Prisident condemns the government's move to bail out Valuecap to support the local stock market using RM5 billion from EPF, as the provident fund is the custodian of the workers' money and not some sort of ‘automated teller machine' for the government.
If at all the EPF were to lend its money to the government, it has to be under the condition that there be transparency and accountability in the activities for which the money has been purposed.
We want to know who is doing what with the money that belongs to the workers. This is the hard-earned money of the workers, their retirement plan. How is this bailout plan going to benefit the workers?
We also question the reason for this bailout. If the economic fundamentals in Malaysia are strong and reserves sufficient as has been stated several times by the government, then why is there a need to offer so much money to the GLCs?
Second Finance Minister Nor Mohamed Yakcop should prove how the EPF would profit from this loan. Bernama had reported that Nor had given the assurance that the loan given out by EPF would reap profits for the fund judging from Valuecap's past performance.
But where is the paperwork and calculations to show that this move will benefit the EPF? MTUC is concerned that the loan might be mismanaged or misused and this, in turn, would affect the returns for the contributors.
Mere assurances are not enough. We want to proof that this RM5 billion will not go down the drain.
AND SOME OF US ARE STILL SLEEP-WALKING
AND KIDDING OURSELVES THAT
THE COUNTRY IS NOT IN DISTRESS.
AND KIDDING OURSELVES THAT
THE COUNTRY IS NOT IN DISTRESS.
PAKATAN RAKYAT AND MTUC
HOW HOT DO YOU WANT THE IRON TO BE
BEFORE YOU STRIKE?
SHEESSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
HOW HOT DO YOU WANT THE IRON TO BE
BEFORE YOU STRIKE?
SHEESSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
17 comments:
rest assured this money WILL go DOWN the JAMBAN... everything BN touch went the way too... but for AI saying he's in no hurry is an insult to RPK point blank! Maybe AI forgot what's it like inside now that he's a free man!
If the bleeding iron has heated up to lava consistency nobody, including LKS and AI could do anything but get incinerated themselves, blardy idiots!
the moon revolves around the earth and the earth revolves around the sun and your universe revolves around anwar ibrahim.i pity you guys.
not only is the country in distress... all those who have sacrificed for the cause & the promised change...
they now hv no qualm in arresting 6 yr old delivering Deepavali invite...
Anwar & PR... how fucken hot before it's hot enuff??!?!?!?!
_________________________
http://delcapo.wordpress.com/
Anwar,
One more good reason why you should not waste any more time in toppling this most hateful racist and corrupt gomen. The people cannot tahan any more their nonsense. Do not rule out using "People's Power" as a last resort in your quest. Good Luck
not yet warm the finance minister seat but already thinking of whacking the people money.
guess they must have sapu licin-licin all the petronas perigi.
we should just lodge a police report against this daylight robbery.
I am utterly disappointed and totally disillunsioned with DSAI. I feel so sorry for RPK, who had such high hopes that he would only be in Kamunting for a couple of weeks. Now DSAI says he's not in a hurry to form a new government. Did he pause for a moment to think of the person who is being incarcerated under ISA? I believe that DSAI can't care two hoots about DSAI, and soon the rakyat will forget him. He certainly will be there for a long long time. I can only pray that God will give him strength and comfort.
From AGUNG, Sultans and to all the MPs, all kow tim already, My gut feel is all the hoover-MAHATHIR corruption files have been displayed to all and sundry by UMNO, SO Anwar chances are deminishing by the day, the zakaria Palace, kow tim by the Keadilan to kasi canche to the greiving family of the scumbag mat deros family from the Keadilan part of pakatan is also a big dissappointment. Another Scenario is Anwar would be mad to take over a govt riddled by so much corruption with the stock market crashing, govt on the verge of bankruptcy and his own sodomy problems. bottom line mahathir has come back into the scenario, and the wily old fox has the ear of najib, knowing mahathir the strategist, Anwar is being checkmated. we the rakyat just got sodomised.
dear zorro,
me think it is no bail out. me think there is a scheme. me think some unseen forces are accelerating the fall of share prices in bursa. margin account holders are now screwed. me think they are using the epf money to pick up cheap shares and eventually profit from the crisis. it is no conspiracy theory just that people's memories are short.
~ roach ~
YES I AM FED UP TOO
WE ALL ARE TOO
DSAI IS JUST ONE BIG BLUFF
LOOKS LIKE ITS TIME TO JUST LAY OFF AND SUFFER IN SILENCE ONCE AGAIN
MONEY SPEAKS VERY LOUDLY AND WE DONT HAVE ANY SINCE THEY HAVE TAKEN ALL OF IT
I LIKE WAHT AISEHMAN DID...AND I WOULD JUST DO THAT TOO
SORRY PETE...
I WISH I COULD DO SOMETHING FOR YOU.
Bernard this is off topic but this is urgent and needs to be addresed. I would like to reply to en. zulkifli Nordin, A person who has mis-represented himself to the voters of Kulim, he also mis-led the public and his political allys about his true nature. WELL to some of his remarks I have this to say, The muslims nor the Malays,do not have the franchise on the word allah, read this.
http://www.4islam.com/origin.shtml
The Origin of Allah
Introduction
by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi
We recently came to know of the allegation made by the self-proclaimed Christian Critic of Islam Mr. Quennel Gale that from historical sources, it can be ascertained that the word "Allâh" for God in Arabic originates from pagan sources and have never been used in a monotheistic context. This paper will serve to refute the claim from etymological and historical sources and prove that that the Arabic word for God, "ALLAH" as well as the Hebrew "ELOHIM" and Aramaic "ALAAHA" comes from the common Semitic word "EL" (Ancient Canaanite)
The Religion of the Pagan Arabs
In trying to "prove" his delusion that Allâh has always been a pagan god, the Critic argues the following:
If you ask a Muslim how do they know that Allah is the one true God, they will go to Muhammad and the testimony in the Qur'an to prove their point. But if you look back in history, before Islam, you will never see at any point that Allah was just one alone...Allah's monotheism is a myth. If the Muslim claims that you have proven that well "Allah had a family and was used in pagan worship but was just truly one"; can they actually prove that? No, because it's not the truth historically.
Not only does the Critic show his ignorance of the origins of the word ALLAH in Arabic, but he also shows his ignorance of the religion of the pagan Arabs in pre-Islamic Arabia. Let's discuss it in brief here: To the pagan Arabs, ALLAH is the One True God of Abraham and Ishmael, and the Lord of the Ka`aba. This religion was originally pure monotheism in nature. However, the pagan Arabs tainted this simple monotheistic religion of worshipping Allâh alone by resorting to worship of idols as intercessors to worship Him. They would stand by an idol and, using it as an intercessor, worship Allâh.
In an article of Infoplease.com, the following paragraph states the belief of the pagan Arabs:
...Arabic chronicles suggest a pre-Islamic recognition of Allah as a supreme God, with the three goddesses al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as his "daughters".
Another article by Microsoft® Encarta® Online Encyclopedia 2000 regarding Allah states the following:
ALLAH...The term is a contraction of the Arabic al-ilah, "the God." Both the idea and the word existed in pre-Islamic Arabian tradition, in which some evidence of a primitive monotheism can also be found. Although they recognized other, lesser gods, the pre-Islamic Arabs recognized Allah as the supreme God.
In the Collier's CD-ROM Encyclopedia, more details could be found regarding how the pagan Arabs view Allah:
Archaeological, linguistic, and non-Arabic data support the view that there were among the Arabs, long before the emergence of Islam, worshipers of a supreme god known as Allah...leaves little doubt that the Meccans, despite their idolatry, recognized that Allah was Creator and Supreme Provider...Allah was recognized as a High God to whom the inhabitants of the desert and the townsfolk turned in all great difficulties. Two pagan bards, Nabighah and Labid, used the name "Allâh" in connection with the Supreme Deity, while the so-called Hanifs, in their search for an acceptable religion, rejected polytheism and sought freedom from sin by appeal to the will of Allah.
On the description of this "primitive monotheism" of Arabia, it says:
Evidence shows that Islam goes back to a primitive monotheistic belief of ancient Arabia. Though this early faith in Allah was not a monotheism complete with theological dogma, there was a continuous tradition among the peoples of the desert, or among some of them, that maintained a belief in an Originator, a Supreme Being. This High God was the guardian of their flocks, arbiter of ends, protector of their lives, sender of rain, and their defender against the hazards of fate.
Rev. St. Clair Tisdall, the author of The Original Sources of The Qur'an, despite unfailingly asserts the theory of "Qur'anic borrowing", does admit in his book the following:
For the word Allah, containing as it does the definite article, is a proof that those who used it were in some degree conscious of the Divine Unity. Now Muhammad did not invent the word, but, as we have said, found it already in use among his fellow countrymen at the time when he first claimed to be a Prophet, a Divinely commissioned messenger. Proof of this is not far to seek. Muhammad's own father, who died before his son's birth, was called Abdu'llah, "Servant of Allah." The Ka'bah or Temple at Mecca seems long before Muhammad's time to have been called Baitu'llah or "House of Allah."
It is clear that contrary to what the Critic is claiming, the pagan Arabs had always recognized ALLAH as the Supreme Deity and the Lord of the Kaa`ba. Yet, he is trying to claim the opposite of what historians have acknowledged about pre-Islamic Arabia.
Does "IL" Comes from "ENLIL"?
The Critic argues the following points:
The root form of the name of the earth god in Sumer is found in Enlil, the primal god. If we drop the gender prefixes from Enlil and his consort Ninlil, we are left with the root, "LIL." This is reduced later in many cultures to "IL." (Some "scholars" have tried to say that IL is EL, but the root form of IL is LIL, so this notion just won't work. Of course these "scholars" have no respect for the Bible unless it supports their presuppositions.) The system of putting prefixes before the god names were used in the Hamatic cultures like Sumer. After the god / goddess moved on to Semitic cultures such as Assyria and Semitic Babylon, a suffix was attached after the "LIL" or "IL" root.
Actually, the Critic had committed a mistake here. Enlil was a storm lord (in Sumerian: EN = lord; LIL = storm) and his consort Ninlil (NIN = lady), not an air god. His name is rendered in Akkadian simply by Bel (Akkadian: BELUM - means lord). As "lord of the storm" he was closely connected with mountains, and eventually with the earth itself. The Arabic for "god" is ILAH. Hence, how LIL = storm in Sumerian can be related to ILAH = god in Arabic is beyond me. Even if we were to drop the gender prefixes, as the Critic suggests, it would still not prove that ILAH originates from the Sumerian word for storm! So to say otherwise would be fallacious.
Is "AL-ILAH" of the Pagan Arabs Synonymous With "BAAL" of Babylon?
Earlier, the Critic listed out the differences of "EL" and "BAAL", from his earlier pre-conceived notion that "BAAL" which originates from "ENLIL", is the same "ALLAH" of the Pagan Arabs, because ILAH "originates" from the same root as "ENLIL". As has been shown, "ILAH" cannot originate from "LIL" because the root word of "LIL" means "storm", not "god".
The following is excerpted from Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia's article on the pagan god Baal:
The Semitic word baal, meaning owner or master, was also used in ancient religions for lord or god, and it is still defined as a Canaanite or Phoenician deity. Among the greatest of the Semitic peoples' deities were Baal and Astarte both symbols of fertility. Baal, the god of the sun, was supposed to make crops grow and flocks increase. Astarte, the goddess of the moon, was identified with passionate love.
On the places where Baal is worshipped, the same article says:
The religion of Baal was spread by Phoenician sailors throughout the Mediterranean world (see Phoenicians). Baal cults grew up in Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Carthage, and Spain. Baal and Astarte, under different names, were worshiped in Babylonia and Assyria.
Regarding on how Baal was worshipped by its devotees, it continues:
The priests taught that Baal was responsible for droughts, plagues, and other calamities, and they made sacrifices to appease the angry god. Bullocks, goats, sheep, and sometimes humans were burned alive.
In the Collier's CD-ROM Encyclopedia, we find the following information on Baal:
Referred to as Aliyan (I Prevail), Baal triumphed over the champions he encountered in battle. He came to be distinguished by the name of the locality in which he was adored and by the special character or function attributed to him. Every major aspect of religious life could, moreover, develop the cult of its own Baal. In general, he was credited with being the male author of fertility in soil and flock, and offerings in kind were presented to him at proper festivals.
From what we have gleaned above on the pagan Arabs' religion on ALLAH as well as on BAAL, the following can be concluded about Baal:
• BAAL, god of the sun, is the pagan symbol of fertility. This is not a characteristic of what the pagan Arabs believe about ALLAH, who is the Supreme Deity and Lord of the Kaa`ba.
• BAAL was a warrior-god, which ALLAH is not considered so by the pagan Arabs.
• BAAL was worshiped in Asia Minor, Egypt, Greece, Rome, Carthage and Spain. Nowhere was it said that he was worshiped in Arabia, as was ALLAH.
• Sacrifices to BAAL included burning humans. ALLAH was never given human sacrifice or any sacrifice by burning.
So can we say that ALLAH is actually the pagan god BAAL? Based on what is seen above, we can conclude that the answer is no. Obviously the differences in terms of characteristics of the pagan gods with the pagan Arabs' view of ALLAH are glaring, even if we do accept the original argument of the Critic that the Arabic word ILAH comes from the word LIL of Sumer.
Fallacy of Equivocation
We've seen that EnLIL, the air god's attributes were given over to Baal. Allah at the time of Muhammad was the high god, while Allat was his consort. Enlil in Sumer was the same thing while Ninlil was his consort. In Babylon, Baal was the high god. This derived from LIL/IL of Sumer, which was mentioned earlier. The breakdown of the name is BA' ILAH, and the goddess is BA' ILAT. Langdon reports that Astarte was also Ba' Alot or Beltis, the wife consort of Gebel, another LIL derived god of Babylon.
The efforts of the Critic trying to find a similarity between ENLIL and BAAL with that of ALLAH here is built around the (mis)conception that the goddess ALLAT, or AL-LAT of the pagan Arabs is the consort of ALLAH. But this is already false. Why? Because the goddess ALLAT, or AL-LAT of the pagan Arabs is not the consort of ALLAH. AL-LAT is, along with AL-UZZA and AL-MANAT, are the three daughters of ALLAH to the pagan Arabs.
Surely the Critic can do better than just throwing assumptions at us. For this important claim, i.e. that AL-LAT is the so-called consort of ALLAH, he offers no quote of an authority, no diagram, no illustration and no specific detail. He does not say when, where or by whom this information is derived. Does the Critic expect his readers to accept his most important point on faith alone? Usually we take at face value what a writer says, because we expect him to tell the truth. We have been seeing again and again that with the Critic, we cannot afford that risk.
Obviously, we can see here that the Critic is committing the fallacy of equivocation. He takes a term which meant one thing in a certain context and the same term which means another thing in a new context and pretends that since the term is the same the meaning is also the same. He argues that since the Enlil of Sumer had a consort, Baal of Babylon had a consort and the false notion that the High God Allâh of the Meccan Arabs had a consort, therefore they are one and the same god having consorts.
To see how this fallacy works, consider this argument for illustration:
The Japanese believed their emperor to be the Son of God. Christians also believe in the Son of God.
That way of saying things implies that Christians believe in the Japanese emperor. That, of course is not true. Now consider Quennel Gale's argument:
The pagan storm lord Enlil of Sumer had a consort. Baal of Babylon had a consort. The High God Allâh of the pagan Meccan Arabs also had a consort
If no one knows that Allâh of the pagan Arabs never had a consort, the Critic would therefore get away with his implication that Allâh was therefore the same god as is ENLIL and BAAL. But this is no more truer than to say that Christians believe in the Japanese emperor.
Quennel Gale's Folly
The Critic Quennel Gale thinks that if he can prove that what the pagan Arabs at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) called upon as Allâh are actually Mesopotamian deities such as ENLIL and BAAL, then he will have proved that what he has presented are
...cited evidence on my Allah link that disproves the idea of Allah being the original God of the Arabs.
Perhaps we can help rescue him from his folly by pointing to what he has already acknowledged. He admitted and reiterated many times throughout his articles that al-ilah means "the god". Well, in that case, when a message about the true God comes to them what are they supposed to call the true God? The non-god? Of course they will call Him by the names and titles they already know for deity. But they will be no longer calling out to their pagan gods although they are still using the same title or name meaning deity.
If the Critic still cannot understand this we can draw his attention to the Old Testament which uses the ancient Babylonian and Canaanite name for god "El" besides the One True God of the Bible. Muslims do not accuse the Old Testament, however, in that case of idolatry. So why does the Critic seek to insult the Qur'ân in this way?
Or, we can draw his attention to the New Testament. There God is referred to many times as ho theos. Does the Critic realise that the worshippers of Jupiter referred also to Jupiter as ho theos? Would he then accuse the New Testament writers of reviving the worship of Jupiter?
Or, read Acts chapter 17. Athens was a major centre of idolatry, but the people there also worshipped what they called "an unknown god." When Paul had an opportunity to address them, he spoke thus:
"Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: To An Unknown God. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you." (Acts 17:22-23)
Would the Critic take issue with Paul for this? You see what Paul has done. He noticed an altar dedicated to an unknown god and realized that in addition to all their idols, they also worshipped the true God. Their problem, however, was that they did not know enough about the true God, and Paul aimed to now fix that with his preaching.
In a similar way the pagan Arabs worshipped 360 idols, but they also worshipped the true God. Their problem was that they did not know enough about the true God. So God commissioned his Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) to fix that with his preaching.
The message of Paul to the Athenians and of Muhammad to the Arabians was not that they should forget about the unseen god in whom they believed. The message was that they should come to accurate knowledge about Him.
So, it can be agreed that what the Critic is presenting to disprove the whole message of the religion of Islam is absurd and fallacious right from the onset. The Critic is drowning in his own argument and could even lose his own faith if someone else were to patent his methods.
So Who Is "ALLAH"?
The Critic many times reiterated that
...before Muhammad, Allah was never worshiped as a single monotheistic god, so we clearly see that Allah has always been pagan, his monotheistic characteristics were the invention of Muhammad.
In answer to this allegation, let us turn to what the Sierra's Reference Encyclopedia says about the word Allâh and its origins:
ALLAH, the name of the Supreme Being in the Islamic religion. The word is a contraction of the Arabic al-ilah ("the God"); the idea and the word are rooted in primitive Arabian tradition in which traces of a simple monotheism are evident.
The article on the word Allah at Infoplease.com says:
Allâh; Pronunciation: [al´u, ä´lu] [Arab.,= the God]. Derived from an old semitic root refering to the Divine and used in the Canaanite El, the Mesopotamian ilu, and the Biblical Elohim...
Note: In Assyrian, Ilu is God, while Ilatu means "goddess".
Encyclopedia Britannica (1992) says:
Etymologically, the name Allâh is probably a contraction of the Arabic al-Ilah, "the God". The name's origin can be traced back to the earliest Semitic writings in which the word for god was Il or El, the latter being an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh.
In Caesar Farah's book, it says:
Allâh, the paramount deity of pagan Arabia, was the target of worship in varying degrees of intensity from the southernmost tip of Arabia to the Mediterranean. To the Babylonians he was "Il" (god); to the Canaanites, and later the Israelites, he was "El'; the South Arabians worshipped him as "Ilah," and the Bedouins as "al-Ilah" (the deity). With Muhammad he becomes Allâh, God of the Worlds, of all believers, the one and only who admits no associates or consorts in the worship of Him. Judaic and Christian concepts of God abetted the transformation of Allâh from a pagan deity to the God of all monotheists. There is no reason, therefore, to accept the idea that "Allah" passed to the Muslims from Christians and Jews.
This passage clearly says that the God who was called Ilah in Southern Arabia was called El by the Israelites. This fact would certainly ruin the Critic's entire 'ILAH is from LIL root of Mesopotamian deities' theory. Why should the Critic, after all, let his readers know that according to two of the Gospels, Jesus was on the cross calling out to El who, if the Critic is right, is the ENLIL of Islam?
The Arabic name Allah consists of the definite article "Al" [the] attached to the noun "Ilahun" [god -- allowing for the classical nunation]. When "Al" is attached, the I (aliph) of "Ilahun" become quiescent, the L of "Al" assimilates in pronunciation with the L of "Ilahun," and the word loses its nunation. Also Modern Arabic drops the final vowel [the case ending] in pronunciation. The resultant pronunciation is "Allah." However, the spelling in the Qur'an is Al[I]lah(u/i/a), where [I] is the quiescent but written aliph, and the last vowel is the case ending [u for nominative, i for genitive, a for accusative]. The Arabic word "Ilahun" is the equivalent of Aramaic "Elah" [no case endings in Aramaic] and of Hebrew "Eloah" [no case endings]. It is then obvious that the word "Ilah" comes from a common Semitic root, EL or ILU/IL for the word (g)od, as do the words "Eloah" in Hebrew and "Elah" in Aramaic.
Professor Carleton S. Coon in his book, Southern Arabia, states:
The god Il or Ilah was originally a phase of the moon god, but early in Arabian history the name became a general term for god, and it was this name that the Hebrews used prominently in their personal names, such as Emanu-el, Israel, etc...
So what do you know? According to Professor Coon's statement here, the same name which in Southern Arabia that was originally a phase of the moon god and later became a general term for god (Ilah) was also used in Hebrew names like Emanu-el, which the Critic considers a name for Jesus (pbuh)! Should we now make the claim that the name Emanu-el has actually a pagan heritage?
The following table depicts the common Semitic root word for (g)od, which is El or Ilu and was commonly used in reference to different deities besides the Only True God:
Semitic Origin of the Word "god"
Ancient Canaanite EL
Ancient Mesopotamia IL/ILU
Hebrew ELAH/ELOAH
Aramaic EL/ELAH
Arabic ILAH
And the next table shows the common Semitic words used in reference to The One True (G)od.
Common Semitic Word for "God"
Hebrew ELAH/ELOHIM
Aramaic ALAAHA
Arabic ALLAH
so to all the ZULKIFILIS OUT THERE NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU OPEN YOU MOUTH AND SOUND STUPID, PLEASE LAH CHECK YOUR FACTS. THIS IS NOT ABOUT ISLAM OR THE MALAYS THIS IS ABOUT HYPOCRATES, WHEN YOU KEEP SHOVING YOUR RELIGION DOWN THE TROATS OF NON MUSLIMS, THAN BE PREPARED FOR THE BRICK-BATS BEING THROWN ON YOU DUMB HEADS.
THE MINOR ROLE THAT ISLAM IS SUPPOSED TO PLAY AS STATED IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION IS BEING EXPLOITED BY PEOPLE LIKE THIS ZULKIFILI TO START ANOTHER FORM OF POGRAMS, A LA NAZI GERMANY, to basically take more from the tables of the non-muslims in Malaysia, it is another form of NEP, BUMI ONLY POLICY, to undermine the fundamentals of the federal consitution, let us remind the ZULKIFLI'S and ilk, the federal constitution has a clause that does state, any laws made to ammendd or change the federal constitution are NULL AND VOID, THERE FORE THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION CANNOT BE CHANGED OR ALLENDED, ALL THE 500 OVER CHANGES SINCE 1957, IMPLEMENTED BY UMNO ARE ILLEGAL.
TUN PERAK
Promises, assurances and claims means absolutely nothing and could very easily be broken without any recourse and leave the contributors without funds to finance their livelihood when they retires.
EPF funds should only be invested in 1st class well managed companies with a history of solid profitability and sound/solid management skills and practices.
The government should never be allowed too dabble with the fund of workers who worked hard all their working life to ensure that they could enjoy their future in retirement!
If an investment is claimed to be very/overly profitable and these claims could not be substantiated or the claimants refuses or are unable to substantiate their claims, then, such investments are clearly too good to be true - and should be avoided at all cost!
History has always proven that such misplaced claims and enthusiasms will result in misery for those who are greedy enough to be misled.
EPF funds should follow a foolproof plan in growing its profitability steadfastly and must never be overwhelmed by claims of significant or substantally high returns - these funds belongs to the people, not the government!.
Very simple logic,since they can't squeeze from eurocopters,they get it from EPF.Daylight robbers,no use making a police report,no action will be taken.Vampire BN, stop robbing our money,or we will take it to street.
hi zorro,
is it true that the chinese reporter that got ISA'd has resign?
Another one of UMNO doin!!!
me
ya man!!! can DSAI quickly take over before they sapu kering our EPF money!!!!
HEY ! LAT = the cartoonist lah !
btw, allahmak is the mak or ibu of ....guess !
INSERT
Post a Comment