What if I get fielded in Hougang or Aljunied?

What if I get fielded in Hougang or Aljunied?

According to one blogger, this is the kind of question that could apparently cause recruitment problems for PAP in 2016. But it’s bigger than that. To me, that is one of the biggest problems in the way Singaporeans think about politics today.

Singaporeans have grown used to the idea that the PAP inducts ‘minister-calibre’ talents into Cabinet every five years, usually bright scholar types, and typically with little or no challenge.

And that is wrong.

No one– no matter how talented, no matter how much he earned in the private sector before joining politics– should have an entitlement mentality. No one should think that he can just walk into Parliament as a minister, as long as he is willing to make a ‘sacrifice’ (ie earn less as a minister than he used to).

No voter should accept such a fait accompli, from any party.

In other democracies, Ministers have to first earn their stripes as MP’s for many years. Usually it is the senior party loyalists who are appointed Ministers. New faces not only have to prove themselves in electoral battles, they also have to earn the trust and respect of their constituents for at least one to two terms before they become ministers.

There’s definitely no parachuting of ‘talents’ from the private sector straight into a plum minister’s job.

While some may say this rewards party loyalty at the expense of ability, it is also a way to make sure that a candidate has his heart set on politics as a career. Because when someone has served at least 10 years as MP, they will not only understand voters and their concerns, they will also understand whether a life in politics is suitable for them.

Frankly the idea that a ‘minister-calibre’ candidate can just waltz into Parliament and the Cabinet by hiding behind another heavyweight minister in safe GRC is disgusting. If there are any ‘minister-calibre’ candidates who worry about being fielded in Aljunied or Hougang, that would show that they don’t want to fight elections, they don’t have it in their hearts to be politicians, they are just technocrats and managers.

A Minister is not someone that you simply appoint to the position after a round of tea interviews. Company boards may do that when they look for the next CEO or CFO. Politics must not be like that.

A Minister must first and foremost be an MP and a politician. He has a duty to represent the people, and to represent his country. If he has never been an MP, never fought for a single vote by himself, never done a single Meet the People session, never seen for himself all the problems that voters face– how can he be a Minister?

How can Ministers have compassion for the people if they have never been an MP for even a day before they are elevated into the Cabinet?

The PAP system is wrong. It is wrong to try to give Ministers an easy path into the Cabinet via GRC’s. It is wrong to make people Ministers without having served a single day as MP. It is wrong to compare Ministers with CEO’s or CFO’s. It is also wrong for the people who accept the PAP’s offer to think that a Ministerial job is like any other corporate job, that once they pass the interviews by the PM, they will get the job.

Singaporeans must remember that every MP is elected to serve them, not to renew the PAP’s cabinet. They must break out from 50 years of conditioning by PAP. And they must make sure that they don’t give so-called ministerial-calibre candidates a free ride into Parliament in 2016.

Because if we don’t reject this PAP philosophy, we will not be led by political leaders, but we’ll be led by a bunch of headhunted managers who have no real interest in politics.

See also: The Death of PAP


About politicalwritings

Someone who sees beyond PAP and "opposition" in Singapore politics. To understand more please see the Top 10 link below.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to What if I get fielded in Hougang or Aljunied?

  1. Tok says:

    Well said. Fully agreed with all the points you said here.
    Then go watch the Razor TV clip today where DPM Teo Chee Hean just had a seminar with Pre-U students. In one of the clips, he said to them “There is no fast-track escalator in life….”. and I laughed so hard. Then he talked about the “consistency of saying and doing” as an important value. I laughed even harder, almost fell off my chair. My dog did the same thing. He flipped over!!

  2. henry says:

    Hear! Hear!
    Yes, you need to learn how to julienne a carrot before you can bake and create your own recipe

    Having said that though, we still need strong understanding of finance and business at low levels and corporate.. if not, legal frameworks.. after all they will be lawmakers.. Look at the discovery at JP Morgan’s board of directors.. some with no banking knowledge except maybe to draw a cheque!

    Yet, the current “parachute” model does not serve us. It did perhaps 30 years ago when economics overruled politics. We were uninformed and rice bowls was far more important.

    Back then it catapulted us to where we are now. Its time for progress, and progress to me ( politically ) means allowing different voices to be heard and counted. Of course it will mean more work to design policies to accommodate these different vices.

    This is where they have failed and failed very badly and it looks like they will stubbornly pursue their stand. So be it. The line is drawn, thick and deep. I expect a long and protracted contest.

    Our alternative politicians will need to work very efficiently and offer real solutions.
    Not some hot rhetoric proclamations just for rallies or press statements.

    Will the real Singapore minister please stand up?

  3. Pingback: Daily SG: 30 May 2012 « The Singapore Daily

  4. Jack says:

    “No one– no matter how talented, no matter how much he earned in the private sector before joining politics– should have an entitlement mentality’
    Didn’t smebody say in some way that the GRC thing also helped to induct talent to the PAP leadership and it would not be able to recruit them if there were no garauntee of success in elections? And thats precisely the Party have been doing past few elections

    • Yes. And it’s the wrong kind of talent that was inducted. People who could read the numbers and realise we need more young people and hence opened the floodgates to immigration, but did not have compassion for the people because they were ministers from Day 1. Hence policies were enacted without reference to the people.

  5. allthatjazz says:

    absolutely!! very well argued.

    there is a LOT of insiduous, out-moded thinking and beliefs that need to be dumped.

    more and more these days, when one listens to ministers’/govt arguments, one feels one has entered a class on how to bamboozle — badly.

  6. Jackie Phew says:

    This writer is confused.

    First, he presumes as correct an assertion made by “one blogger” that potential candidates approached by the PAP will be reluctant to step forward as they fear they may be posted in Aljunied or Hougang, and then proceeds to attack PAP candidates for having that mentality. How contrived can you get? By the way, how does that explain people like Ong Ye Kung and Desmond Choo stepping forward, or Sitoh staying the course in Potong Pasir? Instead, what you have is many opposition politicians who disappear after one failed election.

    Second, most Ministers are not appointed straight after elections. Save for some exceptions, they spend time as Parliamentary Secretaries or Ministers of States. The late Dr Balaji stayed on as a Minister of State even after it was made clear to him that he would not be made a Minister, giving up a lucrative practice as a brain surgeon.

    Third, how does the writer define democracy in the first place? In the US, Ministers (or Secretaries) are not elected at all, but appointed by the President. The UK also had Ministers who were not elected MPs, but appointed by the Prime Minister. Ultimately, the President or Prime Minister is accountable for their performance, and if they perform badly, their Party suffers. No one claims that the US or UK systems are less democratic, or that their ministers have no “compassion”. In Singapore, every office holder has to stand for elections.

    But all this ignores a larger point. In Singapore, it is not that difficult to make the decision to stand for elections because you continue to keep your career. But going into office means having to give that up. If you are bright and capable, you are likely to have done well outside politics, so that is a big decision. Coming into politics also means that you and your family come under some scrutiny, you have no private life to speak of, you have to work 7 days a week and you must expect to be flamed regularly. People will say that this should not be a deterrence to those with a “heart to serve”. That sounds good, but look at the experience of the democratic countries around the world. Their best and brightest are not in government. Their politicians claim that they have a “heart to serve”, but many are servants to big business and special interests.

    This article simply engages in rhetoric. If we prefer our politicians to do the same because it makes us feel good, trust me, there will be more than enough people who will be happy to do so to get your vote.”

    • Let me respond.

      I’m very clear in my piece. This piece is not about whether Singapore is more democratic than the US or UK, or vice versa. It’s the PAP system of minister elevation I’m writing about. It’s about the kind of ministers we are getting from the PAP.

      Notwithstanding the above, I don’t see why you bring up the US system, which is far different from the Parliamentary system. For them the President decides everything, and their office holders are management staff to help him carry out his executive functions. Cabinet members serve at the pleasure of the President, and he is responsible and accountable for what they do because only he is elected and answerable to the voters.

      For us (and other Parliamentary democracies), the PM can be changed at will by the ruling party, especially when a PM becomes too unpopular. Indeed, any of the ministers or MPs can always mount a power challenge to replace the PM. That’s why all officeholders are elected, because whoever is the PM must also command the confidence of the majority in Parliament, and thus he must also indirectly have the people’s support.

      As for the UK’s appointment of non-MP’s as ministers– you do know it’s very rarely used. Most ministers are drawn from the House of Commons. Why do you think that is so?

      Last, I don’t see why you repeat the PAP propaganda that ministers lose their private lives and work seven days a week. First, we do not have paparazzi who stalk ministers or investigative reporters that dig up scandals on them. Second, they don’t work seven days a week– unless there’s a crisis.

      I also don’t see why you believe the line that successful people make a sacrifice to enter politics. Of course, they have to give up their career. But why is it a sacrifice? If you don’t want to give it up– don’t. Why do I want to force a top doctor or lawyer to become a Minister if he doesn’t want to? Do you think in the US, their office holders think of the sacrifices they have to make to join the Administration? When people earn tens or even hundreds of millions on Wall St, do you think you could even compensate them enough to give up their careers?

      So why do you think that, when it comes to PAP ministers, they are being asked to give up something? If all they can think of is what they give up, then I’d rather have someone else be Ministers. Someone who is interested and dedicated to politics. Rather than someone who has to be coaxed and persuaded into it.

      You’d be surprised that there are many many successful people who don’t think that making more money is the key thing in life. Many of them willingly donate their fortunes to charity. And there are many many others for whom making enough money to live decently is good enough. They don’t need to be the top millionaire earners. To do meaningful work is good enough. That PAP does not appeal to such people– and has to use money to coax high-earners to join them– tells us something is wrong with the PAP to start with.

    • Phew... I'm confused. says:

      “In Singapore, it is not that difficult to make the decision to stand for elections because you continue to keep your career. But going into office means having to give that up. If you are bright and capable, you are likely to have done well outside politics, so that is a big decision. Coming into politics also means that you and your family come under some scrutiny, you have no private life to speak of, you have to work 7 days a week and you must expect to be flamed regularly.”

      There are several things wrong with your argument.
      1) Keeping your day job whilst earning a $15,000 a month salary for a part time night job is just completely nonsensical. That’s why “it is not that difficult to make the decision to stand for elections.”

      2) “going into office means having to give that up”. Give what up? Dual income?

      3) “If you are bright and capable, you are likely to have done well outside of politics” – THERE YOU GO!!! That’s the point. Surely you are referring to the generals, admirals, statutory board heads and union heads that the PAP parachutes in, right? They have done so well for themselves outside of politics, it is time to reward them with a better paying, more comfortable, easy-to-get-elected MP position. Because, in Uniquely Singapore, “bright and capable” = scholar. And, only in Uniquely Singapore, union heads cannot wait to join the ruling party government.

      4) “…scrutiny,…. work 7 days a week…. flamed regularly” – These are all new concepts with the introduction of the internet at GE2011. Previous to GE2011, who scrutinized our politicians? Which politician got “flamed regularly”? And why is working 7 days a week a problem. You are paid an absurd amount of money, I expect you to give me your phone number so that you can be at my beck and call… I PAY YOUR SALARY!! Domestic help in Singapore work 7 days a week (one day off every fortnight)… and they get $400-500.

      Going into politics is about SERVING. It is NOT about money. If the candidate has such a huge dilemma about giving up their other career over serving the people, then maybe serving is not really the job they should be considering. If candidates go into politics ONLY because the compensation is similar to what they could be making in their other career, it is the wrong reason. A Member of Parliament is a government SERVANT. They don’t use the word SERVANT for no reason. If you do not want to lead your life as a SERVANT, then stay out.

      We have a government that does all the wrong things for self preservation.

  7. Jackie Phew says:

    I am sorry. You are not confused – simply biased.

    Your original premise was that people who parachute in as Ministers are not “compassionate” and therefore will not be able to formulate policies which help people. But US ministers who are parachuted in are ok because theirs is a different “system”. But that is a distinction without a difference. Do you really think US ministers have no hand in policy making and simply carry out the President’s bidding? Even if you are right, don’t our Ministers similarly carry out our PM’s bidding? In that event, is it ok if we just elect the Prime Minister and let him appoint Ministers? Saying there are different “systems” is simply ducking the issue.

    But the real problem with articles like yours is that it has has no sense of perspective or proportion. Do you really think our biggest problem is the GRC system, and “free rides”? Don’t be naïve. The purpose of democratic elections is to select the team which will best serve the country for the short, medium and long term. But as Fareed Zakaria rightly pointed out, we are beginning to see that democracy has a genetic defect as it tends to favour the current. Look around and see what is happening in the world. Economic problems are not difficult to solve. But the reason they are not being solved is because countries are suffering a lack of leadership. Politicians lack the will to do what is right. They do not want to anger their electorate because they are only thinking of the next election – so all you get are rhethoric, platitudes, stop gaps and cosmetic changes. Any party or person which supports tough measures (think Greece, France) is booted out and the electorate votes politicians who say what they want to hear. So, nothing gets done, they kick the can down the road, there is no future planning and the situation gets worse. Come next election, as things invariably do not improve, they vote the other guy in.

    People in “first world” democracies have lost faith in their leaders and in politics. Large numbers do not even bother voting at elections. Politics and politicians are treated like a joke.

    If you want our political system to be like other democratic countries, than be prepared to get the same kind of leaders and politics they have. Good luck to us all.

    • I don’t think you get it that the US has a different system from ours. It is the people’s choice to have their kind of electoral system—the seaparation of powers, the electoral college system, the executive president, the checks and balances by Congress and the Senate, etc.

      We have chosen a Parliamentary system. There is the doctrine of the Cabinet’s collective responsibility. And the requirement that all Ministers be elected MP’s to begin with.

      We should thus live up to our system. Not circumvent it by trying to parachute in Ministers.

      If you want to have a system where only the PM is accountable, everyone else serves at his pleasure, then PAP should move a Constitutional amendment.

      I’m not ignorant on the problems of western democracies. But I do not understand why you think the way PAP does things is correct. I do not see why you think Ministers should be given a free ride into Parliament just because you think democracy has a genetic defect. Indeed, by your argument, since the US system allows cabinet appointees to be parachuted in, doesn’t that address your genetic defect? Yet we know the US also faces huge problems.

      My piece is not about who is more democratic or who is less. It’s about why I do not agree with the PAP’s minister elevation policies and tactics. I do not agree that we should try to get technocrats and managers who have no interest in politics as Ministers.

    • Jack Tan says:

      Jackie, you choose not to mention that although US Cabinet is appointed by the President,its members (and judges) have to pass through a very thorough scrutiny and confirmation process by the Senate. Indeed there are many cases of prospective appointees having been turned down by the confirmation committee in the past after dirt
      have been dug up.
      Therein lies the 1st step towards the check & balance process in the US system.
      I think you are wrong on the UK Systems .All UK ministers are elected MPs in single seats in the House of Commons. Only members of the House of Lords are appointed or
      inherited their positions.
      Compare with the GRC system, the Party does the checking process on their own and voters have to take package as a whole, the good with the bad if there is any. How impartial can that be? And according to your post , the GRC system works so wonderfully well in our democratic system and been around for more than 2 decade , why aren’t any country copying it?
      Your linking other countries’s economic problems’ not being solved due to their weak democratic sytem is as misleading as your post all together. I am not a economist but
      I sure know its more complex that that

  8. henry says:

    ” People in “first world” democracies have lost faith in their leaders and in politics. ”

    We are on the same path here. And if the electorate chose to vote out a party, its because the party has not served the electorate. Regardless if it was a “good” decision or not, the voters are saying : ” solve the problems, we do not like the way you are handling it, we disagree with your approach”.

    Obviously, the PAP does its maths and calculations. Yet, with its behemoth size and capabilities,and resources the results are less than their expectations. Why?

    Simply because the voters disagree with their approach & methods. If this is not clear, then 2016 should mark the point of no return.

  9. Jackie Phew says:

    More text book politics and rhetoric.

    The US confirmation system may be intended to provide scrutiny. The reality is quite different. Senate confirmation hearings have become a political game. You think Senators have their voters’ interests in mind when they confirm or deny, say, judges? They decide in their party’s interests. So Republicans will block liberal activist judges and Democrats will block conservative ones. Horse trading takes place on the side. It is less about whether the candidate is qualified.

    “Sacrifice” has been a grossly mis-used word. There are many sacrifices when a person takes public office, not least how it affects your family. Anyone who factors in his family, his career and other personal considerations as part of the decision making process is not less of a person or a politician. It just makes him human. Ultimately, we hope that the call to serve will help him overcome his doubts, and when in office, he will do his best to serve the country.

    People want their politicians to make public “sacrifices” because they think this demonstrates that they care and this makes everyone feel good. But all over the world, there are many examples of politicians who are more than happy to give people the theatre they want, and then make up for those “sacrifices” later. I am sorry, but I am more concerned with having effective leaders. I do not need someone to make “sacrifices” for me to feel good or to decide whether he is a decent person who will act in the best interests of our country.

    People will vote the government out if it does not deliver what they want. I agree. But people will act in their self interests and will place greater weight on the current. That is exactly what Fareed Zakaria meant about the genetic defect of democracy. Just a simple illustration – do you have any doubt that the MPs of Toh Yi, Woodlands and Bishan will lose some votes when the plans to build nursing homes/studio apartments/old folks homes in those areas go ahead? Now imagine if those constituencies had been won on thin margins. Would they dare build such facilities there? That is what is happening in Western democracies – the emphasis is on benefits within election cycles and not long term goals, because the latter is not politically profitable. Don’t blame the politicians – they are just doing what the people want them to do. That is what happens in a democracy, and Singapore is headed that way.

    I am not saying that the Singapore system is perfect. But you are misleading your readers when you imply that there is a clearly better system out there, or that our system will be improved by doing away with GRCs. You address some issues, but create others. So, please just have some intellectual honesty when you write.

    And by all means, look forward to 2016 and beyond. I hope you are all carefully planning for your families. It is going to be one hell of a ride.

    • Jack Tan says:

      I respect your unequivocal support, like all likeminded PAP people , for the GRC system (to the point of deriding other fairer democratic systems).
      I suspect the moment oppositions gain a few more GRCs at the next or subsequent GEs, the time they will start thinking of ditching it and come up with another system.
      That’s when the merit and motive of the system will be obvious to you

      • Exactly. As we now know, PAP plays the game by putting “heavyweight” ministers to “anchor” GRC’s and fields new candidates in those GRC’s to maximise their chance of getting walkovers or getting elected. Nothing wrong with wanting to win– everyone wants to win. But surely it illustrates how perverted the GRC system has become. When you have a system that was sold as ensuring minority representation being abused to bring in new “minister-calibre” candidates with as little competition as possible, that tells you something is not right.

  10. “You think Senators have their voters’ interests in mind when they confirm or deny, say, judges? They decide in their party’s interests. So Republicans will block liberal activist judges and Democrats will block conservative ones. Horse trading takes place on the side. It is less about whether the candidate is qualified.”

    That may be so, but the above also shows you don’t understand why political parties exist in the first place.

    Parties exist because there is a group of people with certain beliefs. As you noted, Republicans are conservative, Democrats are liberal. What you have not said is that, supporters of Republicans are also conservative types– white middle class types, Bible-belt types, military types, etc. Ditto, Democrats have a different breed of supporters, who believe in the values of the Democratic Party.

    So when Republicans block liberal judges, it’s not just because they want to be difficult, it’s not just in the party’s interest, it is because it is what the Party’s voters want, it is because the Party holds certain beliefs (like pro-life) and it is the reason why they have supporters in the first place.

    Of course, something has to give when there are opposing views. Either horse trading takes place, or the parties agree on a compromise candidate. That is what politics is about. If you don’t get that, you’re still living in the LKY era, you are still thinking like a dictator, like you know best.

    That kind of compromise is what is lacking in Singapore today. Because the PAP was so strong, it never had to horse trade, never had to compromise, never had to back down on anything. You may see strength and decisiveness in that, but surely you can also see the dangers of what people can do when given a free hand. That is why PAP got killed at GE 2011 because they never accommodated any compromises in housing, foreign workers, etc.

    As for “sacrifices”– you lost the plot completely. I don’t believe politicians are making sacrifices at all. Neither has member of any US Administration ever complained about making a sacrifice when called upon to serve. Instead, they have always said how honoured they are to be called upon to serve.

    The fact that you continue to harp upon “sacrifice” shows you don’t understand what politics is all about. If it was about “sacrifice”, there would never be successful businessmen, actors, lawyers or tycoons who spend their own money to run for office as Governors, Senators, Congressmen and Presidents. People like Michael Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenneger. Even Obama and Clinton could remain lawyers, earn more than being a Senator. Did they ever talk about sacrifice?

    People go into politics because they want to go into politics. Just like certain people go into the miltary, generation after generation, who have fathers and grandfathers who fought in every one of America’s wars. Just like certain people who want to be policemen, or firemen, or people who spend a life in theatre. Not because these occupations will make them rich. And certainly not because they see themselves making sacrifices. But because they genuinely want to be soldiers, policemen, firemen, theatre actors, etc. and they have never thought about the sacrifice because they never had a Wall St career in the first place.

    The PAP believes it should pluck successful doctors, lawyers, CEO’s, etc. to become Ministers, persuade them, coax them to give up their careers for politics. I believe PAP is targeting the wrong people, people who have no interest in politics in the first place. I understand their problem– no one wants to join them. But the solution is not more money for ministers.

    Stop talking about sacrifice. When you have a real problem, do you want a military officer who joined the SAF only because the pay attracted him and minimised his sacrifice? Or do you want someone whose family has served with distinction for generations and who have given their lives for the country in every war that it has ever fought?

    The same goes for politicians. Do you want real politicians, or only those who view it as a sacrifice?

  11. Jackie Phew says:

    Finally, some agreement. I specifically said that “Sacrifice” was a grossly mis-used word. We should stop using it. But that is exactly the argument critics of ministerial wages make – that public service involves some form of “sacrifice” and that is why public officers should not expect similar treatment to those in the private sector.

    So why don’t we agree that we should just pay what the job is worth, and leave out “sacrifice”? The PM has the most important and difficult job in the country. You may not agree with “most”, but it must be pretty much up there. We also want someone of high quality to do the job – highly intelligent, unimpeachable character, a feel for Singaporeans, etc etc the list goes on. They are a rare breed. Why don’t we just agree to pay what the job is worth, and leave the emotion out? Instead, we have high-sounding arguments that we should keep the pay low to discourage those attracted to money.

    And to the intellectual who wrote that US Politicians never speak of sacrifice because they join politics as a calling, thanks for a good laugh. No doubt some feel that way, but it is really the easiest lie to tell – like all the Republican presidential candidates who said they ran because God told them to. God obviously has a sense of humour.

  12. Jackie Phew says:

    A winning argument, indeed. Perhaps it is you who does not get it? No doubt, you are speaking from your many years of experience in politics and running a country (or any organization?). Perhaps you can share your successes, and I will gladly tip my hat. But if it is based on astute observations made from the comfort of your armchair, then I think not.

    • Oh really? You want to say you’re more qualified to comment because you’ve years of experience running countries? I think not. Most world leaders are pressed for time, they won’t be commenting on posts. So you can’t win on the strength of your ‘qualifications’ either.

      Let’s just let readers judge for themselves whose arguments are stronger, shall we? Rather than engage in a beauty contest.

      I’ve highlighted that your skull is too thick for other people’s views to get through. Why? Proof of that is that you continue to harp on ‘sacrifice’ when I’ve never talked about ‘sacrifice’. Instead, my point is that if someone views taking on a political appointment as a ‘sacrifice’, then I don’t want him to make the sacrifice at all. He can go. Because there are many others who will take on the job and not view it as a sacrifice.

      That’s why there are those who serve in the military, who serve in the police, who play football, who go into theatre, etc. Not because these professions make money for them. But because they believe they can excel in those professions, and they are passionate about their chosen professions.

      And they never view their choices as ‘sacrifices’.

      So the question of ‘sacrifice’ does not come into the discussionat all, except when trying to coax unwilling high-earners into politics. That is the PAP way. That is not the way I propose.

      This is the last time I will say this. If you still can’t get it, I will move on.

      Actually this whole piece is about the fact that PAP’s ‘politicians’ aren’t really politicians at all, and what it means for the country. Not about minister pay.

      Pity this discussion got hijacked.

  13. Jackie Phew says:

    Oh dearie me … calm down and take your medication. Don’t worry about public opinion – very few people read this anyway, particularly as you now confirm that you really don’t know what you are talking about. I actually prefer leaders who are not politicians – considering the reputations politicians generally have. Best wishes to you and your blog, and to the many more happy hours you will no doubt spend making no difference whatsoever .

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s