• Shocking growth in deficit of Non-Financial Public Enterprises (NFPEs) is a ticking fiscal time bomb for Malaysia

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 25th of October, 2013 in Kuala Lumpur

    Shocking growth in deficit of Non-Financial Public Enterprises (NFPEs) is a ticking fiscal time bomb for Malaysia

    The Barisan Nasional government will surely play up the fact that it is a prudent government that is managing its finances well resulting as demonstrated by the reduction in the projected budget deficit to RM37billion or 3.5% of GDP in 2014. But this ignores an extremely worrying problem of a huge increase in the deficit position of the companies which are owned or controlled by the government and statutory bodies – or Non-Financial Public Enterprises (NFPEs). For 2013, the projected deficit is RM93 billion or a massive 9.4% of the GDP. This represents a six-fold increase from the R15.6 billion deficit recorded in 2012.

    The NFPEs refer to thirty “government-owned and / or government controlled companies and agencies owned by the government” whereby “ownership and control refer to Government or a public sector agency controlling more than 50 percent of total equity”. They would include companies such as Petronas, Tenaga, Telekom, Axiata, Malaysia Airlines, UEM Group as well as more recent additions such as 1MDB, Prasarana and MRT Co. The financial position of these companies affect the fiscal position of the government directly and indirectly. These companies contributes directly to government coffers by paying corporate taxes (and the Petroleum tax for Petronas) as well as dividends. They (or via special purpose vehicles related to them) also issue bonds which carry an explicit as well as an implicit government guarantee i.e. the government has to pay for these bonds if these companies run into financial trouble (think PKFZ).

    Table 1: Financial Position of the Non-Financial Public Enterprises (NFPEs)

    RM Million 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
    Revenue 323,393 368,233 351,196 420,109 404,488
    Current Expenditure 275,232 302,676 298,461 351,623 371,205
    Current Surplus 48,161 65,557 52,735 68,486 33,282
    Development Expenditure 55,706 49,348 49,472 84,042 126,234
    Overall Balance -7,545 16,209 3,263 -15,556 -92,952
    % of GDP -1.1 2.3 0.4 -1.7 -9.4

    Source: Economic Report 2013/2014, Economic Report 2012/2013, Economic Report 2011/2012

    What is shocking about the figures in Table 1 is that the deficit position of the NFPEs, which had been in surplus for 2010 and 2011, is projected to reach RM93 billion in 2013! This huge growth in the deficit has been driven by a massive spending spree in development expenditure which increased by 70% from RM49.5 billion in 2011 to RM84.0 billion in 2012 and is projected to increase by another 50% to RM126.2 billion in 2013. The NFPEs, in 2013, spent three times as much on development expenditure compared to the federal government.

    It will be many years before some of this development expenditure that is being spent can start generating revenue e.g. the MRT project. Some projects may never generate enough revenue to cover operating costs – Prasarana which runs the LRT as well as the RAPID bus systems in KL, Penang and Kuantan is still making losses. Some projects may very well turn out to be very expensive white elephants e.g. 1MDB’s Tun Razak Exchange.

    The massive increase in the deficit position of these NFPEs also means that the government’s exposure to these development expenditures have increased. If some of these projects do no bear fruit, the corporate taxes and dividends paid to the government by these NFPEs will decreased. In some cases, the government may be forced to step in to bail out these companies.

    What is even more worrying is that the statistics and information pertaining to the development expenditure and financial standing of some of these NFPEs are not publicly available. In a paper presented at the MyStats 2012 forum, the Chief Economist of Maybank Investment Bank, Suhaimi Illias highlighted the ‘black box’ nature of development expenditure in NFPEs and GLCs:

    “Despite the significance of NFPEs and GLCs/GLICs in the Malaysian economy, end-users in the private sector has somewhat limited access to their capital expenditure data, other than the information available from major entities like PETRONAS and the large public-listed NFPEs/GLCs (e.g. Telekom Malaysia, Tenaga, Malaysia Airlines) that are used as proxies to impute public sector investment, in addition to the Federal Government’s development spending.

    Even then, this NFPEs’ development spending number reflects only the biggest 30 NFPEs with minimum annual sales of MYR100m.”[1]

    The government cannot continue to ignore the potential impact of the deficit position of the NFPEs. What is needed now is for the disclosure of the full accounts of all the NFPEs which are not publicly listed including Petronas, 1MDB, Prasarana and MRT Co so that there is full transparency on the development expenditure of these companies. What is needed now is for a full evaluation on the government’s ability to absorb potential losses arising from their exposure to these NFPEs, perhaps in the form of a Stress Test that has been conducted by organizations such as the IMF for the banking system in the country.[2] Without concrete actions taken, the continued growth of the deficit position of the NFPEs is a ticking time bomb that may explode unexpectedly with disastrous consequences for the government’s fiscal position and the country’s economy.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming

    Member of Parliament for Serdang

  • Why does this Government find it so hard to reduce government expenditure? (And why do economists allow the government to get away with it)

    Why does this Government find it so hard to reduce government expenditure?

    (And why do economists allow the government to get away with it)

    Every year, during the budget session, the Barisan Nasional Finance Minister announces a certain government expenditure figure and the following year, without fail, the Minister comes back and reports an actual expenditure that is significantly higher. For example, the projected expenditure for the 2012 budget was RM230.8 billion but the actual expenditure was closer to RM249.5 billion, a difference of RM18.7 billion, a not exactly insignificant amount. (See Table 1)

    Table 1: Difference between Actual and Projected Expenditure (2009 to 2012)

    (RM million) 2009 2010 2011 2012
    Projected Expenditure 205,899 189,499 211,987 230,833
    Actual Expenditure 206,063 202,929 227,928 249,544
    Difference (Actual – Projected) 164 13,430 15,941 18,711

    Source: Economic Reports 2008 / 2009 to 2011 / 2012

    How does this government get away with this time and time again? Why do the professional economists not call them out for this profligacy?

    The fact that the government seems incapable not just of hitting its budget projections but far exceeding it is directly related to perceived need to introduce the regressive Goods and Services Tax (GST) during the upcoming budget 2014 speech and to be fully implemented in 2015. The government tries to massage the so called need for the GST by saying that it will be a broad based tax that will be more effective in raising taxes and at the same time reduce leakages by bringing in the informal sector. At the same time, the government will put in a strategy that will reduce expenditure of subsidies. These supposedly sound arguments mask the fact that the government refuses to share in the pain which the people will feel when the GST is introduced along with the removal of subsidies.

    Here, I want to outline a few plausible reasons as to why this government finds it almost impossible to reduce government expenditures and by doing so, avoid the need to introduce an unpopular tax.

    Firstly, no minister would voluntarily ask for the budget of his or her ministry to be reduced. This is normal since a smaller budget means less power and influence, even putting aside issues of graft and bribery. Only if the Prime Minister and / or the Finance Minister plays the role of chief ‘whip’ to demand that each minister sacrifices a portion of his budget can there be an across the board reduction in government expenditure.

    In the case of Malaysia, the Prime Minister who is also the Finance Minister would find it hard to justify asking everyone else to cut their expenditure when he himself is not willing and able to cut expenditure in the Prime Minister’s office (PMO), which is arguably the most bloated of all the Ministries, given its rapid expansion under Abdullah Badawi and the continued expansion under Najib. Remember, agencies such as Pemandu and Agensi Innovasi Malaysia (AIM) which employ many expensive contract staff are under the PMO. Remember too, that the budget of the PMO has doubled from RM7.1b in 2008 to a projected RM14.6b in 2013, slightly more than a two-fold increase. During this time, the projected federal expenditure has only increased by about half, from RM168.8 billion in 2008 to RM248.6 billion in 2013. Given Najib’s non-confrontational character, it would be difficult for him to ask for other Ministers to sacrifice without doing the same for his own Ministry.

    Secondly, the ‘pain’ that would be felt by each Minister in the context of Malaysia may be more than just a loss in influence and power but also a loss in economic gain through the awarding of expensive and bloated contracts to cronies. For example, more than 60% of the estimated RM800 million cost to run the National Service Program (Program Latihan Khidmat Negara or PLKN) is spent on camp trainers and supplies for these camps. Any minister who may benefit from these contracts would be out of his mind to ask for this program to be reduced or abolished.

    Thirdly, the government has been very fortunate in that actual revenue collections have also exceeded projected revenue on the consistent basis. With the exception of 2009, when there was a global economic crisis, actual revenue has always exceeded projected revenue by at least RM10b over the past 5 years (Table 2 below). What this means is that the government has never been under real pressure to tighten their belts. If let’s say, the dividends from Petronas were to fall by RM20 billion because of a global collapse in oil prices or some major hiccups with their oil fields in politically unstable places like Sudan and Iraq, the government would be forced to carry out significant belt-tightening.

    Table 2: Difference between Projected and Actual Revenue (2008 to 2012)

    (RM million) 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
    Projected Revenue 147,093 176,220 148,446 165,825 186,906
    Actual Revenue 161,558 162,100 159,653 185,419 207,246
    Difference (Actual – Projected) 14,465 -14,120 11,207 19,594 20,340

    Source: Economic Reports 2007 / 2008 to 2011 / 2012

    Fourthly, the government has managed to ‘hide’ much of the growth in government expenditure by shielding them in off-budget items. This usually means that setting up of a special purpose vehicle such as Dana Infra to issue bonds to fund infrastructure projects like the MRT project that is placed under a government incorporated company such as MRT Co. None of the MRT spending spending appears officially on the government budget. These contingent liabilities – bonds which are government guaranteed but not in the official budget – totalled some RM150 billion at the end of 2012 and will only rise as the cost of projects such as the LRT extension, the MRT project and the much delayed KLIA2 project continues to rise. If these costs were properly reflected in the budget, it would be much harder for the government to justify the continued rise in operating expenditures.

    The question then becomes, why do the economists, who are supposed to ‘warn’ people of the dangers of government profligacy, allow the government to get away with this? I propose a few plausible answers.

    Firstly, most economists are concerned about rising government debt and the continuing deficit but their proposed solutions usually involve (i) reduction of subsidies especially the oil subsidy and now, increasingly, (ii) the introduction of the GST. Not many local economists would call for significant cuts in other parts of the government’s operating expenditure and certainly not specific programs in specific ministries.

    The subsidies are a much ‘safer’ area to touch on since it involves a big chunk of change (over RM20 billion a year in the past 4 years) and is easily calculable. The GST is also put forward as an easy fix because of the supposed benefits on paper which I’ve outlined earlier.

    Very few local economists would trawl through the Auditor General’s report to estimate the potential cost savings from each of the projects and to recommend that some projects be abolished. This is usually a political judgement and most economists would fear to tread into this arena. Their superiors in their organizations would probably not appreciate it if these economists were to start making calls on which departments to downsize or which programs in the Ministry of Education which should be cut.

    Secondly, using conventional wisdom, the ability of the Malaysian government to continue to service its debts seem sustainable. Debt servicing takes out approximately 10% of government expenditure. The debt to GDP ratio is at a seemingly manageable 52% of GDP. Even if contingent liabilities were added, our debt to GDP ratio would rise to between 65% to 70%, which is significantly less than the levels in development countries such as the UK, Japan and the US, just to name a few.

    If the professional economists are not very worried, why should the average Malaysian worry about government profligacy and wastefulness? Is Pakatan Rakyat making much ado about nothing? I do not think so. We are on a trend in which we can easily slip over the economic precipice in term of our government debt. If Petronas’ overseas revenues get hit hard by unforeseen circumstances, if a few of companies with significant contingent liabilities have to be bailed out at the same time – think 1MDB, MAS, Prasarana and MRT Co, if the 10 year business cycle drags the global economy down again in 2018, we could easily see out budget deficit and debt levels skyrocket. The Irish economy was chugging along nicely and its debt to GDP ratio was as low as 25% in 2008 before it had to bail out its banks and now its debt to GDP ratio stands at 120% just 5 years later in 2013. While we are not in the same position as Ireland, FITCH IBCA has warned of a possible cut in ratings and Forbes columnist, Jesse Colombo, has warned of an impending property and economic bubble in the country. I still remember how government officials and BN politicians were arguing about how Malaysia is ‘different’ from Thailand when the run on the Thai baht started in 1997. We were not spared from the Asian economic crisis then. We will not likely be spared if another crisis hits the region.

    To end, I want to quickly propose how Pakatan is better placed to reduce government expenditure compared to the BN. A new Prime Minister without any attachment to the existing institutions and structures within the PMO would have fewer doubts in cutting the PMO down to size. Pakatan has already made such a promise in the 2012 alternative budget. We have followed up by identifying specific departments such as PEMANDU which would be abolished under a Pakatan government. Our latest 2014 budget spells out more programs and specific targets in terms of operating expenditure reduction. With a Prime Minister leading the charge, there will be more impetus for other Ministers to cut the expenditure of other Ministries. Furthermore, there will be less incentives for Ministers to maintain certain programs for ‘personal’ benefits once a check and balance system which empowers the MACC and which reduces corruption is put in place.

    Of course, this involves hard work and difficult decisions but I am very confident that between Pakatan and the BN, there is no question that Pakatan has less baggage, has promised do to more and is better placed to cut government expenditure by reducing waste, corruption and unnecessary programs. This is a much better alternative to introducing the GST which hurts the poor while the government does nothing to tighten its own belt.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang

  • The implementation of the Feed-in Tariff by SEDA that was focused on large companies has been a massive failure. Focus instead should be given to individual quotas.

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, in Kuala Lumpur on the 26th of September 2013.

    The implementation of the Feed-in Tariff by SEDA that was focused on large companies has been a massive failure. Focus instead should be given to individual quotas.

    According to the SEDA 2011 Annual Report, a total of 380MW of the Feed-in-Tariff quota has been released by SEDA for the year 2012 (190MW) and 2013 (190MW). According to SEDA’s website, only a pitiful 120MW or 31% has been successfully installed as of today (See below).[1] For the year 2013, the figure is 15MW or 8% of the 190MW released.

    Installed Capacity (MW) of Commissioned RE Installations
    Year Biogas Biogas ( Landfill / Sewage ) Biomass Biomass ( Solid Waste ) Small Hydro Solar PV Total
    2012 2.00 3.16 43.40 8.90 15.70 31.53 104.69
    2013 3.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.86 15.24
    Cumulative 5.38 3.16 43.40 8.90 15.70 43.39 119.93


    In a parliamentary I received on the 23rd of September, it was stated that 31MW for 11 holders of the FIT quota has had their applications revoked because of non-compliance with the rules and conditions. In the same reply, I was also told that 92 holders of the FIT with a capacity of 190.76MW were given extensions to their commissioning date deadlines. A majority of these extensions – 77% – (71 out of 92) affecting 92% of the quota (175.2MW out of 190.76MW) were for a period of more than two months. This means that more than half of the FIT quota for 2012 and 2013 – 221MW or 58.3% (out of 380MW) – was either delayed or cancelled. And we have not even reached the end of 2013 yet!

    My colleague, Tony Pua, and I recently raised the issue of why some of the quotas that were initially revoked by SEDA were then overruled by the Minister.[2] At the same time, I received information from industry sources that 40 companies which applied for FIT quotas earlier this year have not yet heard from SEDA (either a rejection or approval). This means that their precious capital is tied up and cannot be used for other business activities.

    SEDA released a measly 500kW of quotas of solar for individuals on the 28th of August, 2013, and this quota was taken up without the first hour. SEDA had to postpone the release of another 1000kW to a future date because overwhelming demand from individuals.

    The implementation of the FIT scheme by SEDA has been a massive failure. Instead of focusing on the big companies, who have failed to deliver thus far, SEDA should instead shift its focus to allow a larger % of the FIT quota to individuals. Right now 81% of the quota for Solar Power is allocated to non-individuals (>0.5MW). By giving out more individual FIT quotas, the risk of non-instalment is spread across a larger number of players. More people especially small companies / SMEs who can install the solar panels can also benefit. In the upcoming Pakatan Rakyat Alternative Budget for 2014, more measures to encourage small players to participate in the renewable energy will be introduced.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming

    Member of Parliament for Serdang

  • SEDA should ensure effective implementation of current Feed-In-Tariff policy before asking for the electricity tariff for the Renewable Energy Fund to be increased from 1% to 2%

    Joint Media Statement, Dr. Ong Kian Ming and Tony Pua, in Kuala Lumpur on the 19th of September, 2013

    SEDA should ensure effective implementation of current Feed-In-Tariff policy before asking for the electricity tariff for the Renewable Energy Fund to be increased from 1% to 2%

    It was reported last month, August 2013, that the Sustainable Energy Development Authority (SEDA) is seeking another 1% increase in the electricity tariff from the current 1% for all consumers who use more than 300kWh per month.[1] This increase, according to SEDA, is to facilitate the release of more Renewable Energy quotas for the Feed-in-Tariff (FiT) which allows quota holders who have renewable energy installations to sell back electricity into the grid.

    Before seeking to impose new financial burdens on the consumer, SEDA needs to demonstrate that it is capable of successfully rolling out its current plans. The current performance of SEDA has been far from satisfactory as evidenced by the following examples:

    (i)                Many of the holders of the FiT have not seen their licenses revoked but have been given extensions by the Minister of Energy, Green Technology and Water

    In a parliamentary reply to Tony Pua on the 27th of June 2013, it was stated that up to that point, only two companies – Bumi Masyhur (5MW) and Diversified Harvest Sdn Bhd (5MW) – have seen their FiT permits revoked because of non-compliance (‘tidak memenuhi syarat’).[2] It should be noted that one of these companies – Diversified Harvest – is one of the companies controlled by the daughter of former Chief Secretary to the Government, Tan Sri Sidek Hassan, who received more than 30% of the initial solar power quotas, as highlighted by Tony Pua in July 2012.[3]

    In the same parliamentary reply, however, it was stated that there were 4 permits that were supposed to have been revoked but were given 5 months extensions by the Minister. These permits are owned by Cemara Angsana (holds two permits of 1.25MW and 4.5MW respectively), Corporate Season (4MW) and Gubahan Ceria (4.5MW). To quote the parliamentary reply “Pembatalan sepatutnya dibuat pada … tetapi diarik balik berdasarkan keputusan YBM (Yang Berhormat Menteri)”. It should be noted that Corporate Season is one of the companies controlled by the daughter of the former Chief Secretary.

    In addition, when the original FiT commencement dates (from December 2011) were compared to the latest FiT commencement dates as listed on SEDA’s website[4], it was found that 28 other permit holders were given extensions as well.

    This clearly shows that many companies were having problems meeting their deadlines which calls into question SEDA’s implementation plan for renewable energy, in this case, the solar energy quota.

    (ii)              It is questionable whether some of the permit holders actually managed to successfully install its quota

    For example, IRM Solar Sdn Bhd is shown to have installed 5MW of solar power in April 2013 in Perlis, according to SEDA’s website. But the IRM Group, the mother company, which is also listed on Bursa Malaysia, had one its subsidiaries default on its debt[5], failed to submit its accounts in February 2013[6] and lapsed into PN 17 status in June[7]. It is hard to imagine the successful installation of a multi-million ringgit solar power plant in the midst of all these financial difficulties.

    Another company, Ambang Fiesta, was supposed to have successfully installed two solar plants with a 1.3MW and 5W capacity in June and November 2012. But SEDA’s own website only shows that a 1MW plant has been successfully installed by Ambang Fiesta in Perlis.[8] It should be noted that Ambang Fiesta is one of the companies highlighted by Tony Pua as belonging to a group of companies that were allocated the lion’s share of the solar power quota in 2011.

    (iii)             SEDA has not delivered on its own targets

    According to SEDA’s website, 31.53MW of solar power was successfully installed by FiT permit holders in 2012.[9] But if the deadlines for each of the quotas are added up, a total capacity of 70.3MW was supposed to have been installed by the end of 2012.[10] For January to August 2013, a total capacity of 41.1MW was supposed to have been installed. Yet, according to SEDA’s own website, as of today, 19th September, 2013 only 11.82MW has been installed so far.[11]

    This means that for this year, SEDA has not managed to even fulfil 50% of the quota target for solar power! At the end of Dec 2011, SEDA had already accumulated RM300m in the Renewable Energy Fund and this fund is expected to grow by at least RM300m a year, with the current 1% tariff in place. A recent report quoted SEDA CEO, Datin Badriyah Abdul Malek as saying that SEDA has RM665 million in its accounts. Since SEDA has only disbursed RM44m thus far (for 2012 and the 1st half of 2013), and with questions surrounding the full roll out of the existing quota, SEDA has not yet made a serious case for additional funds.

    Given these serious shortfalls in SEDA’s performance, we call for the following:

    (i)                That SEDA disclose the full list of beneficiaries of the RM44m disbursed thus far under the FiT agreements for companies as well as individuals[12]

    (ii)              That SEDA disclose the full list of companies who have failed to meet their commencement date deadline thus far and how many of them have been given deadline extensions and for how long

    (iii)             That the Ministry of Energy, Green Technology and Water only considers the further 1% hike in the electricity tariff to fund further FiT quotas until SEDA gets it act together.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang

    Tony Pua, MP for PJ Utara and DAP National Publicity Secretary

    [2] http://www.kettha.gov.my/en/content/yb-tuan-tony-pua-kiam-wee-petaling-jaya-utara-2 (An Appendix to the same question showed that a third company, Abric Properties, holding a small quota of 0.0069MW, had also seen its permit revoked)

  • If Najib is serious about improving the welfare of Bumiputeras in Malaysia, he should implement the 18 recommendations given by SUHAKAM on Land Rights of the Indigenous Peoples including the setting up of a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

    Media Statement by Dr. Ong Kian Ming, MP for Serdang, on the 18th of September, 2013 in Kuala Lumpur

    If Najib is serious about improving the welfare of Bumiputeras in Malaysia, he should implement the 18 recommendations given by SUHAKAM on Land Rights of the Indigenous Peoples including the setting up of a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples

    In his recent speech announcing the Bumiputera Agenda, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak referred to his 2010 UMNO General Assembly speech, where he said, perhaps half seriously, that the Jakuns and Sakai natives are Malays and have been absorbed as Malays.

    If Najib is fully serious about addressing the plight of the marginalized Bumiputera communities in Sabah, Sarawak and in Peninsular Malaysia (which includes the orang Asli), then he should immediately set about to implement the 18 recommendations given in the recently released SUHAKAM “Report of the National Inquiry into the Land Rights of Indigenous People’s”.[1] This report documents many serious obstacles faced by the Orang Asal / Orang Asli in Malaysia in keeping and using the lands that they have traditional used as part of their lifestyles and traditions. This report draws attention to the need for the Malaysian government to adhere to the various international conventions which it has ratified and which have direct relevance to the Indigenous People’s including the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

    Instead of declaring a Bumiputera Agenda that is intended to shore up his own position within UMNO before the upcoming party elections which would have serious long term negative consequences on the economic and political landscape in Malaysia, Najib should instead focus his attention on the marginalized communities in Malaysia starting with the Indigenous Peoples, who are also Bumiputera, in Sabah, Sarawak and Peninsular Malaysia. Among the 18 recommendations made in the SUHAKAM report which deserves particular attention are:

    (i)                The establishment of a Native Title Court or Special Court to deal with the backlog of native land rights cases currently in the civil court

    (ii)              Respecting the internationally recognized principle of ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC)’ in relation to indigenous people’s rights to their lands, territories and resources

    (iii)             Conduct a comprehensive review of the Orang Asli Development Department / Jabatan Kemajuan Orang Aslia (JAKOA)

    (iv)             Establishment of a National Commission on Indigenous Peoples which would ‘advise the Government on laws and policies related to Indigenous Peoples; propose and monitor sustainable development programmes on indigenous people’s land; promote participation of indigenous peoples at all levels, conduct research on issues related to the well-being of indigenous peoples’

    Thus far, no Minister in the BN government, including the Prime Minister and the Minister in charge of JAKOA, has made reference to this very important SUHAKAM report and its recommendations. If Najib and his cabinet continues to ignore the findings and recommendations of this report, it will be proof that he and his government is not serious about addressing the true needs of the marginalized Bumiputera communities in this country but is more interested in reviving a failed Mahathirist crony-driven model of Bumiputera economic empowerment.

    Dr. Ong Kian Ming

    MP for Serdang

Page 10 of 17« First...89101112...Last »