DAP terkejut ..................

Guan Eng terkejut ketika di Rumah Terbuka Tahun Baru Cina BN P.Pinang

Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak pada Selasa berkata kerajaan pimpinan Barisan Nasional (BN) mengamalkan prinsip "semangat kekitaan dan rasa kebersamaan" bagi mengukuhkan perpaduan di kalangan masyarakat pelbagai kaum di negara ini.

Beliau berkata dengan berpegang kepada prinsip berkenaan rakyat Malaysia dari pelbagai kaum mampu untuk bergerak ke hadapan sebagai satu negara, satu bangsa dan satu visi.

"Kita perlu sokongan daripada semua kaum, Melayu, Cina, India, Kadazan, Iban, Orang Asli dan pelbagai lagi. Sekiranya semua ini bergerak sederap (serentak) sebagai satu bangsa, satu negara dan satu satu visi maka Insya-Allah kita akan mencapai apa yang diharapkan.

"Ini bukanlah satu impian yang tidak mungkin jadi kenyataan, ini bukanlah igauan tetapi satu impian manis yang boleh jadi kenyataan kalau kita bergerak dengan semangat kekitaan dan rasa kebersamaan," katanya.

Beliau berkata demikian pada Majlis Rumah Terbuka Tahun Baru Cina anjuran BN Pulau Pinang di sini.

Turut hadir pada majlis itu ialah Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, yang juga Pengerusi BN Negeri Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon; Pengerusi Gerakan, Datuk Dr Teng Hock Nan; Pengerusi Badan Perhubungan Umno Negeri, Datuk Seri Zainal Abidin Othman; Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Tan Sri Nor Mohamed Yakcop dan Ketua Menteri Pulau Pinang, Lim Guan Eng.

Guan Eng tentu terkejut kehadiran begitu ramai rakyat ( 10 ribu )  terutama pengundi Cina 

di  Rumah Terbuka anjuran BN P.Pinang ...

 BN masih lagi mendapat tempat di hati rakyat P.Pinang 

slogan menarik BN P.Pinang untuk pengundi Cina negeri ini iaitu 

"Najib untuk Dasar Kesederhanaan @ Najib For Mederation "

US need a new strategy............

Bi-Sectoralism V: Beyond Short-Termism

We acknowledged when we began our Bi-Sectoralists column that it would be naïve to suggest that politicians and investors should never think short-term. But it's even more unrealistic to accept pervasive short-termism as a given when it is so antithetical to being strategic.

We feel strongly that our problems are structural and therefore require more strategic thinking and bi-sectoral partnership and less tactics. Many of the issues confronting the US and the world are not quickly solved; if they were then we would not be in the tough economic spot we are in three years after the Wall Street crash. Unfortunately, the history of debt deleveragings suggests we are only half way through the time line.

One of us had the chance to engage in some 2012 scenario planning recently. What was striking was the high level of uncertainty, or to put it another way, the lack of conviction about the future. This has led many in the money management business to shorten the duration of their investments and to adopt a more trading driven strategy. That's one option; another is to build a global framework supple enough to deal with the ups and downs and recognize that it is not the day-to-day price movements that matter but rather how one performs over longer-term cycles.

This lack of conviction or clarity as to what the future might hold hobbles business and government alike. Business sits on record amounts of cash, some $2 trillion for the companies making up the S&P 500. Will that money be put to work in research and development? Building factories? Probably not. In Washington, the federal tax take is at a 50-60 year low as a percentage of GDP, yet raising taxes is a political non-starter.

How do we as a nation build the framework that will inform our long range planning and decision-making? How do we get beyond what Tom Friedman called "day-thinking politicians trying to regulate day-trading bankers, all covered by people tweeting on Twitter"? Could it be in the very areas where long-term solutions are most needed?

Well, we have a jobs crisis, an infrastructure crisis, a health care cost crisis, a pensions crisis, an education crisis and a climate crisis. That's a good half dozen areas of focus that by their nature demand long term approaches.

Most of these are national; some are global in scope such as climate issues and to a large extent, growth issues. They cut across industry, state and party lines. Yet there is another line that has yet to be crossed and that is the red line that inhibits bipartisan solutions and public - private cooperation. The prospects for successful strategies to be adopted without first crossing that red line seem dim.

Of course an election year makes crossing that red line all the more unlikely. But even within that political context we're struck by how our own American version of "people power," the Occupy movements yes but also broader rumblings from everyday folks, has shifted the dialogue from a one sided focus on fiscal rectitude to a dual focus on jobs and fiscal responsibility. Score one for the public debate and a shout out to the citizens who generated that shift in dialogue. It is up to us, especially in an election year, to make our voices heard, as people have been doing the world over.

Making our voices heard, though, is not enough; success requires channeling our voices into a coherent set of strategies. One strategy that resonates is to focus on prevention. While preventive war has not proven successful, prevention in social areas such as childcare can yield huge benefits. For example, the Citizens Committee for Children, a NYC child advocacy group, estimates that every dollar spent on youth prevention programs generates $140 in savings on later juvenile justice and law enforcement costs. A dollar spent on pre-school programs is estimated to yield $17 in increased earnings, lower crime and reduced welfare expenses. Sounds great but what programs are being cut as we seek to reduce government spending - you guessed it, these very same programs! That's not strategy, that's tactics and poor ones to boot.

Research on preventive health care suggests significant long-term savings are possible in an area that threatens our economic well-being like few others. Infrastructure spending, spending now to build our competiveness and put people to work, suffers under the current short-term myopia of debt cutting first and foremost.

At the same time, with issues like the Keystone pipeline, as important as short-term job creation is, we can't let it just trump longer-term environmental consequences. There are plenty of ways to create jobs and strengthen energy security without so many negatives on the balance sheet.

Policy makers and investors, business owners and consumers, we all have to balance between immediate needs and long-term objectives. Flash trading doesn't develop technologies of the future. Daily talking points don't add up to coherent policy. A bi-partisan, bi-sectoral approach that gets beyond short-termism is critical to reestablishing our internal well being as a society and our external position as a nation.

UMNO sudah masuk gear 5 bila pula gaer 6.........

@Khairykj Satu hari bersama Khairy Jamaluddin menjelajah Perak.

Ini gear 5 Pemuda UMNO yang menjelahjah negeri Perak

Konvoi dengan rakyar Perak

Jelajah tidak cukup bagi rakyat, kita perlu komitmen dari kerajaan Barisan Nasional dan berpolitik secara matang. 


Saya petik gambar dari :http://aku-tak-peduli.blogspot.com

Musalman Football Player

Most The Best football player is a muslim 

Musalman,

Siapa Pemimpin.......

Inilah Cara Seseorang Pemimpin Yang Rakyat Perlu

Kita rakyat perlu mendapatkan pemimpin yang boleh membawa perubahan kepada negara dan kita rakyat tidak perlu pemimpin yang menghuru-harakan negara. Tidak kira mereka dari golongan BN atau PR dan kami rakyat telah belajar sejarah dari zaman Nabi Muhammad SAW. banyak pengorbanan telah korban. Pada zaman sekarang kita tidak perlu pengorbanan nyawa atau demostrasi (mengunakan rakyat sebagai senjata politik). Politik tersebut sudah lapuk dan politik sebegini perlu ubah. Pemimpin perlu membawa cara berpolitik yang berlainan daripada politik yang telah lapuk ini.


Pengorbanan rakyat sedang berlaku di bumi Arab pada masa sekarang seperti negara Libya, Syria, Iraq dan lain-lain negara. Politik sebegini rakyat yang terkorban beribu-ribu nyawa terkorban dan kami menolak cara berpolitik sebegini. Untuk berjuang tidak perlu pengorbanan nyawa atau demostrasi, kita perlu perjuangan yang sebenar-benarnya bukan nyawa rakyat.


Kita perlu seorang pemimpin yang berwibawa dan pemimpin yang beramanah.......

SIAPA PEMIMPIN YANG KITA CARI ???

Kita perlu ingat selepasa Tun Husien Onn datang seorang pemimpin yang bernama Dr Mahathir Mohadmmad . Beliau telah mengubah negara ini dengan cara berpolitik yang terbaru  dan telah mengubah negara kita Selepas beliau bersara datangnya Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. Beliau pun telah mengubah dengan cara politik yang berlainan tetapi tidak mahu mendapat pandangan dari pemimpin yang telah bersara (Tun M). Sekarang kita telah melantik Dato Sri Najib Tun Razak. Beliau seorang pemimpin yang cara berpolitik yang berbeza .


Bolehkah beliau (PM) ubah cara berpolitik yang berlainan atau pun ada pemimpin yang lain?

Inilah cara untuk menegur pemimpin bukan cara berdemostrasi

Menteri wajar isytihar harta kepada SPRM: Dr Mahathir

2012/01/23KUALA LUMPUR: Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad berkata Menteri Kabinet perlu bersifat telus dan jujur dalam apa juga perkara, termasuk mengisytiharkan harta mereka dan keluarga kepada Suruhanjaya Pencegahan Rasuah Malaysia (SPRM).

Bekas Perdana Menteri itu berkata, sebelum ini Menteri Kabinet hanya wajib mengisytiharkan harta mereka kepada Perdana Menteri sahaja.
"Ia adalah sesuatu yang baik jika dapat isytihar pada satu badan yang tidak ada kepentingan politik dan neutral," katanya kepada pemberita selepas menghadiri Majlis Rumah Terbuka Tahun Baru Cina anjuran MCA di sini, hari ini.
Beliau diminta mengulas mengenai cadangan Lembaga Penasihat Pencegahan Rasuah supaya anggota pentadbiran Persekutuan termasuk Menteri Kabinet menyerahkan salinan fail pengisytiharan harta mereka dan keluaraga kepada SPRM.

Bagaimanapun, Dr Mahathir berkata maklumat tersebut tidak perlu dimaklumkan kepada masyarakat umum kerana ia akan mengundang pelbagai spekulasi dan fitnah.

"Jika ia diketahui umum, akan timbul pelbagai tohmahan dan fitnah. Kita tak mahu perkara itu berlaku. Orang ramai hanya akan memberi perhatian terhadap perkara itu dan bukan kepada soal perpaduan dan pembangunan negara kita," katanya.

Dr Mahathir juga berkata, jika mereka yang menjadi menteri enggan bersikap telus, termasuk mengistiharkan harta, mereka patut meletakkan jawatan secara sukarela sebelum dipecat

Tentera yang terkuat di dunia tewas........

Anne Nivat

War reporter 

Afghanistan, An Indecent Silence

It's rarely talked about on television anymore, and the images are few and far between. When there are images, they're always the same -- soldiers trekking through sand-colored highland villages under the suspicious gaze of stoic men. Commentators have left the scene, leaving the usual suspects to repeat the same sound bites over and over again. And yet, the war that shook Afghanistan -- and in which France has actively participated for a decade -- is not over. On Friday morning, four unarmed French soldierswere killed on a base near Kapisa by a man wearing an Afghani uniform. Their death, reported by a nearly indifferent media, was a cruel reminder that the war continues.

Given the scale of losses, and his incomprehensible stance on the war, President Sarkozy was unable to avoid his recent shocking declaration, in which he implied an early return for the French army. This was a complete reversal of all his previous statements, in which he stressed his plans to remain in Afghanistan.

For ten years, over 50,000 of our soldiers have gone through the "Afghan theater," as it is nicely referred to in military jargon. 82 have not come home. Very shabby theater indeed. Even though the pride of our military has been felt -- the pride of having participated in a large scale OPEX (External Operation), of having fought "at an American level" for a decade, of feeling like a great nation capable of so much -- all that's left today is weariness and doubt.

But this weariness and doubt, whether felt by officers or enlisted men, is kept quiet. Each soldier knows that nobody is interested -- not even his friends, let alone the public. Only his immediate family knows what's really on his mind. Imagine when, at a bar, your friends ask you to explain what really happened in Afghanistan, how many people you took out, and you have to explain that you, in fact, did not kill anyone. No, you did not shoot one single bullet, did not even see anything close to the Taliban. Because that is the other side of war: waiting, watching, knowing that you are being watched, not understanding, doubting, and being killed.


But who sent the military to Afghanistan? Who made the decision at the highest level that France would join in this war, would participate gallantly in an international coalition dominated by U.S. forces, both in terms of finances and resources? Politicians. Our politicians, those that we have had the opportunity to elect in our good old democratic society, where elections are not distorted like they are in distant lands, where we are quick to give lessons in democracy. The politicians that we are about to elect again in less than three months.

So why are they silent? Why, during the Socialist primary, which were covered to death by the media, no one even dared to utter the word "Afghanistan?" Except Martine Aubry, who only mentioned it during the last ten seconds of the third debate to point out that no one had talked about it.

Why, on the side of the majority, do we continue to hear the same awkward silence, the same ignorance of the realities on the ground? Why is it, that for every French soldier that dies in Afghanistan, the same official, impersonal statement is copied, pasted, and used again, with only the name, age, and rank changed? In Canada, a high-ranking soldier always gives a short speech on the life of the individual who has sacrificed his life in the name of who-really-knows-what. The official may not have known the fallen soldier, but this ritual at least honors the dead. And the media are there, with the consent of the families, to film the departure of the coffin from Afghanistan, its arrival in Canada, and the journey to its final resting place. People gather on bridges and roads, some waving flags, to pay tribute. "These are images of what would never happen here in France," have confessed so many saddened French soldiers to me.

Why? Are we ashamed of what we have done -- or not done -- in Afghanistan? Has this topic become taboo? What prevents us from talking about it, from dumping it into the public sphere for discussion, alongside the loss of France's triple-A rating, PIP implants, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon's calling Marine Le Pen "semi-insane," etc..

I prefer to think that our politicians are silent out of complete ignorance, merely following the American example, and daring not to raise an issue that is seen with such ambiguity by the French population (the real question is: have we won or lost the war?). I dare not think that they are silent because they know. They know that this war is no longer "fashionable" and that with the current planned troop withdrawal for 2014, the pack of journalists have abandoned the field. They know that the strategies against Afghan insurgencies have not worked (On Friday, this hostile act against our soldiers was perpetrated; on December 29, 2011, two legionnaires were also shot and killed on a secure base by Afghan police officers that were trained and armed by us, Westerners). They know that we have not won the confidence of the indigenous people, or that we have not won enough. They know that "Afghanization," a pure marketing ploy to help sell a departure "with our heads held high," is second-rate. They know all of this, but they say nothing.

So, ladies and gentlemen, esteemed candidates: what do you have to offer on the subject of Afghanistan, beyond the mandatory question of withdrawal? You, politicians who have been unable to organize even a parliamentary debate, answer. Enter the discussion, and draw conclusions about this military engagement -- it has cost us many lives, and yet it is still neither approved of or understood by the public. After ten years, we still lack clear and convincing answers.

Anne Nivat is a freelance reporter and author of The Fog of War, Fayard, 2011.

Muhammad SAW Liked Christians, We Should Too

Dr. David Liepert

Muslim Author, Leader, Spokesperson, Host of "The Optimistic Muslim" on webtalkradio.net

Muhammad Liked Christians, Muslims Should Too



I have a lot of great friends from a variety of religions, best evidenced by the outpouring of support, affection and prayers when my wife had major cancer surgery last month. I was truly touched when I received word of prayer services in churches, mosques and synagogues literally from around the world. Words cannot express the depth of our gratitude for all your earnest kindness. My wife was particularly moved to learn that across her birth country of Pakistan and the Middle East, food was donated and hungry people were fed in her name. God bless you all.

But my agnostic friends also deserve a shout-out. Because even though they weren't sure whether their prayers could do any good, they were in there with me throughout all the same, doing everything they could think of to help out too, as far as I'm concerned doing just as good of a job honoring God's commands that we look after each-other as everyone else did, even though they're not even sure whether God exists or not!

However, it's the prayers I want to talk about.

Because although my Muslim and Jewish friends didn't feel it necessary to clarify exactly which God they were praying to because everyone of us knows we pray to the same one. Many of my Christian friends -- respectfully, kindly and to my mind tragically -- felt they needed to assure me they were praying to the God of Abraham rather than to Jesus, because they thought I'd be offended otherwise.

And as far as I am concerned, that's mostly because Muslims for the last thousand years have consistently failed to live up to either the commands of the Quran or the example of Muhammad regarding interfaith relations, and thereby have warped the development of both major world religions, leading up to the growing and unnecessary conflict we see developing between Islam and Christianity today.

Frankly, it's gotten so bad between us all that I even have to clarify my admission that I have great Jewish and Christian friends. Because extremist Muslims and extremist non-Muslims alike will tell me I can't because the Quran says Muslims shouldn't be friends with Jews or Christians.

The verse they're talking about is 5:51, which many translate as if it says, "O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and Christians for friends (awliyaa). They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk."

But they do so in woeful ignorance of the real meaning of the word awliyaa, because it doesn't mean "friend" at all. It's actually something much closer to "protector," "helper" or "guardian." It is from a family of words that mean "leader" or even "crown."

In ancient times, a person's awliyaa was an important role more akin to a modern day power of attorney. In that context, the command isn't against having friends among Jews or Christians, it's against putting our destiny into their hands: something that remains good advice to Muslims today.

But the way that command is willfully mis-translated by conflict seeking Muslims and non-Muslims alike speaks not just to how far we've all stepped off the path to peace God's prophets promote, but also how easy it would be for us to step back on if we're willing to listen.
In simplest terms, the question we have to ask ourselves is this: Does God care so much which team we play for, or does he care more about how we play the game?

Muslim/Christian religious chauvinism's not new, and it's not one-sided. In his "Narnia Chronicles," C.S. Lewis, one of my favorite Christian writers, wrote about a "false-God-follower" who, when he met the character Lewis thought represented the true God, was told: "I take to me the services which thou hast done to Tash [the false God] ... if any man swear by him and keep his oath for the oath's sake, it is by me that he has truly sworn, though he know it not, and it is I who reward him."

The thing is, in that series, the Calormen --who worshipped Tash-- obviously played to the worst anti-Arab stereotypes, demonstrating that Lewis wasn't immune to prejudice, but he made an important point about faith, which he clarified:

"I think that every prayer which is sincerely made even to a false god, or to a very imperfectly conceived true God, is accepted by the true God and that Christ saves many who do not think they know him. For He is (dimly) present in the good side of the inferior teachers they follow. In the parable of the Sheep and Goats those who are saved do not seem to know that they have served Christ."

And regardless of his prejudices, Lewis is certainly far kinder than many current Christian theologians, who seem quite prepared to consign even the best Muslims to eternal damnation. More importantly though, he's also completely in line with the teachings and behavior of Muhammad, Abraham, Moses, David and the Christ, among others, alike.



Because Muhammad liked Christians! And he liked and respected Jews and Judaism, too. (If you're interested, Google "Mukhayriq" and the Constitution of Medina.) His uncle Waraqah, the first person who declared his prophethood, likely remained a Christian til the day he died! What he didn't like was Christians and Jews who said one thing and did another, but he disliked Muslims who did that even more.

But more important from an Islamic perspective than his personal feelings were the way he treated Christians, and the promises he made them. The biggest theological difference between Islam and Christianity has to be belief in the Trinity, and that's the main doctrinal point the Quran takes issue with: few Christians today recall that belief in the Trinity wasn't even part of Christianity until the fourth century A.D., or realize that today's Muslims are likely much closer to the beliefs the earliest Christians held dear than today's Christians are.

But belief in the Trinity was taking hold among Christians at the time of Muhammad, and he had to deal with many Christians who not only believed that God could be Three as well as One, but also the belief that Jesus was God as well. Did he condemn them or abuse them for it? Absolutely not!

In fact, when the Christians of Najran came to Medina to debate theology, they quite respectfully asked permission to leave the city to worship the Christ. And even more respectfully, Muhammad told them they didn't have to leave the city at all, and invited them to use his own mosque for their worship! Because Muhammad knew that even though their belief was wrong, it was sincere, and like C.S. Lewis, among many others, he too knew that all good prayers and good deeds go to the same good place and the same good purpose, regardless of how much we know about it. And when they left Medina -- still Christians -- he promised them Muslim protection for their freedom of religion forever.

I often pose "dogmatic" believers a simple question: If I raised my children on a desert island, with no other influence but mine, to believe God wanted nothing more than for them to paint their bellies blue, and if they died with blue-tinged abdomens, would God punish my children or me? You'd be surprised how many figure out some way to justify God punishing us all.

Muhammad, on the other hand, didn't care so much about doctrinal purity. In fact, there's a Christian monastery that's been at the foot of Mount Sinai for the last 1,500 years, which cherishes a document that was dictated by Muhammad and transcribed by Ali (whom Shiite Muslims also revere) that promises Muslim protection for Christians and for Christianity, a promise they made binding on all Muslims everywhere till the end of time.



"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.


No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.

No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses. Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.

No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.

Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants. No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (the end of the world)."

Muslims in Nigeria, Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan, Indonesia and Malaysia in particular should take note.

Now, I think the reason why believers find themselves in conflict with other believers so often is a simple one: The one belief everyone shares, but that divides us from one another regardless, is that we're right about what we believe and we think it matters.

But how much do we know about exactly what Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael believed about God, beyond believing God was One and, as such, above believer's polytheistic playing-one-God-against-another manipulations? Did Moses think God's covenant was only with the children of Israel, or did David think Jerusalem's Temple was for Jews and Jews alone? Did Jesus need to indoctrinate either Samaritans or Roman Centurions before he served them? The answer to all those questions is a resounding "NO!" if you take the time to find out the answers for yourself.

And I think it's incredibly important that we all do so and soon. Not only does the belief that God cares WHAT we believe more than what we do about it divide us unnecessarily, it is also the belief that sits at the heart of the religious radicalism that's currently plaguing us all.

Thinking God cares more about your team jersey, about whether you play for the Saints or the Cardinals, the Servants or the Crusaders, than whether you play by the rules He's set out is

what allowed the 9/11 bombers to destroy the World Trade Centre and think they could still make it to Heaven,

what allows Jewish settlers to abuse non-Jewish Palestinians and think they've serving God's purpose for Israel and

what allows Christian theologians to exhort Americans to vengeful conquest and still think they're somehow serving the Christ.

They all sound equally crazy to me.

But I'm Muslim, and so I ask all my Muslim brothers and sisters around the world, and especially those who think they can or should abuse, mistreat or even kill non-Muslims: Does Allah really care so much what we believe, so much that He doesn't care what we do? Al-Baqarah 177 says otherwise:

It is not righteousness that ye turn your faces to the East and the West; but righteous is he who believeth in the Lord and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the Prophets; and giveth his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and who sets slaves free; and who observeth proper worship and payeth the poor what they are due. And those who keep their treaty when they make one, and the patient in tribulation and adversity and time of stress. Such are they who are sincere. Such are the God fearing.

Because honestly? I think thinking YOU can make God do something; like let YOU into Heaven no matter what YOU do because of what YOU believe, makes YOU bigger than God -- at least in your own mind -- and that's the biggest sin in Islam!

So what's my bottom-line? Heaven can be as big as God wants it to be, even big enough for everyone if He chooses to make it so, and I think it's my agnostic friends who so far have the best of it.

Because by not trying to put God into a box of their own making by way of their own believing they show God the most respect of all of us, regardless of their uncertainties, which quite frankly are mostly the fault of us "true-believers" because of the awful things we've done purportedly on God's behalf anyways.

We Muslims and Christians and other believers, on the other hand, are well on our way to making earth a living Hell for all of us by pretending otherwise. We should put that sort of self-serving, short-sighted believing behind us, before it's too late for all of us.

Ameen.



This Blogger's Books from.

Saya petik artikel ini dari:  http://siamangbukit.blogspot.com/