Work permit holders should be free to change jobs

Work permit holders should be able to look for new jobs locally, after losing or resigning from their jobs. They should not be immediately sent back to their home countries, says Transient Workers Count Too (TWC2) in a submission to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM). The present practice of tying an employee to a particular employer, such that the worker cannot stay on, is damaging to Singapore’s hope for productivity improvement. At the same time, the currently wide-open gates to inflow of fresh workers should be partially closed.

Full disclosure: As a member of TWC2’s council, I was involved in preparing the submission.

The ministry had asked in July 2013 for public comments towards the next phase of amendments to the Employment Act and the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (EFMA). TWC2 sent in a document (39 pages, excluding annexures) containing a long list of suggestions. You can read about it here. There are too many proposals to discuss in this article. I will only focus on this particular point: allowing work permit holders to change employers. Doing so is right by the worker, and good for Singapore.

pic_201311_23We all realise by now that Singapore’s labour productivity is poor by the standards of high-income countries we ought to belong to. Improving productivity is crucial since our domestic population isn’t growing anymore coupled with political resistance to increasing the foreign population. With foreigners already making up 37% of our labour force (based on MOM’s mid-2012 data, see table at right. Source, page xiii) improving productivity must encompass them too.

More importantly, it must encompass the low-wage work permit holders, who make up three-quarters of the migrant workforce. As at June 2013, there were nearly a million of them. The numbers in the following table are also from MOM.


Yet, as is pointed out in TWC2’s submission, several features of MOM’s regulatory system actually work against productivity improvement. These need to be changed. Among them is allowing work permit holders to stay on after exiting one job.

Present system defective

MOM’s present work permit system has mostly been drawn up with migration policing as its chief objective. The state delegates the responsibility for control and repatriation of the worker to private employers. The (perhaps unintended) consequence of this is the tendency of employers to use these levers of control to exploit foreign labour. After all, if the state gives you power on a plate, why not use it?

Another unintended consequence is the high rate of churn, especially in the case of non-domestic workers. Experienced workers are sent home, and fresh inexperienced workers are brought over. Reasons why are discussed further down. Until recently, MOM has not considered this a worrying pattern, again because their focus wasn’t on productivity but on policing.

Currently, work permits are tied to employer and sector

Currently, work permits are tied to employer and industry sector

Getting down to the specifics, under the present system, the rules make an employer responsible for repatriating a work permit holder when the work permit is cancelled or expired. The employer in fact has to put up a bond to ensure this. To protect the employer’s financial interest, the system gives him considerable control over the worker’s movement — such control is sometimes couched in paternalistic language — for example, the employer must either house the worker, or be informed where the worker is staying. More crucially, the worker cannot change jobs and work for another employer without a formal “release”  from the first employer, which in the case of non-domestic workers, is rarely given.

A worker who is unhappy with his present job then faces a difficult choice. He can resign, but he will almost surely be sent home since getting a “release” is unlikely. Or he can continue to work grumpily.

Suffer abuse or go home in debt

For the vast majority of work permit holders, resigning is not a realistic option. Many would have paid $3,000 to $10,000 to training centres and agents to secure their present jobs. Families would have sold land or borrowed at high interest rates to finance their sons. A study by TWC2 in 2011/2012 entitled Worse off for working? found that Bangladeshi construction workers typically had to work 17 months before they earned enough to repay the initial investment.

But more often than not, their work permits are only of 12 months’  duration. If they are lucky and their employer renews their work permit, then more likely than not, they’d have to pay the employer a kickback to get the renewal. The same study found that 65% of 100 survey respondents reported having to pay their employers for work permit renewal — at an average rate of $1,081 per renewal. The workers’ debt gets extended.

Treatment refused

Too often, employers, confident of their power over their foreign employees, deny an injured worker essential medical treatment, which should strike any right-thinking person as inhumane.

Example: There was a worker I met recently, who suffered bone fractures after a fall. The employer refused to pay for an operation, and the bone gradually re-joined, but at a wrong angle.

Under the law, employers of work permit holders must pay for essential medical treatment. They also have to cover their risks through insurance.

After a month or so, the worker got fed up with his employer and sought treatment at a public hospital. This hospital recommended a more major operation that involved re-breaking the bones to that they can be properly aligned. The employer still continued to refuse.

Broken bones when healed in correct alignment should regain virtually all their previous strength, and the patient should be able to resume work eventually to feed his family. Bones not properly aligned may render a limb useless, with lifetime consequences to the earning power of the man and the financial health of his family.

What about enforcing the law? Ah, that’s a different story.

Technically, such kickbacks are illegal, but enforcement has been almost totally absent.

The knowledge, on the part of employers, that it is financially ruinous for a worker to quit creates a tempting opportunity to mistreat workers. Under-calculated overtime, forced lowering of basic salary, arbitrary deductions from the month’s salary, e.g. $400 for a misplaced hammer, are all common abuses. As is denial of medical treatment when a worker is injured (see inset at right). The common thread through all this? Cutting the cost of the worker to the employer.

It should hardly be a surprise that when employers succeed by these (often illegal) ways to keep the cost of labour down, there is no incentive at all to invest in mechanisation and productivity improvements.

Keeping workers unhappy

The government has tried to increase the labour cost, but the lever they have used is to increase the monthly levy. In response, employers simply try harder, and more ingeniously, to cut their workers’ salaries.  Here’s an example I personally came across:

A worker tells me that when he came for his present job, it was on the basis of $19 per eight-hour day. Overtime would be calculated as per the formula provided by law (at one-and-a-half times hourly rate). A few months into his job, the company announced that basic salaries would henceforth be $16 per day, but each worker would get $3 daily allowance.

At first sight, nothing has changed; $16 + $3 = $19. But look closer and you’ll see that his overtime rate has been lowered. Instead of being based on $19 per day ($2.375 per hour x 1.5), it has been re-based on $16 per day ($2.00 per hour x 1.5).

The result of such shenanigans is widespread unhappiness among migrant workers, for one reason or another. And it’s not just over salaries. An injured worker denied treatment means lowered morale among his co-worker friends. How does one get the best out of this workforce if so many of them feel victimised? But how many employers care? From their point of view, the workers have no choice but to stay on the job. That’s all that matters. As I said above, if the state gives you power on a plate, why not use it? If workers slacken out of unhappiness, then bark louder at them, and threaten them with work pass cancellation and instant repatriation.

That, in a nutshell, is the state of labour relations in Singapore in companies with large percentages of foreigners on their payroll or through subcontractors.


Churn is good for employers’ pockets

My observation is that staff turnover, in construction companies particularly, is very high. With bad labour relations come a higher incidence of disputes, which leads to a greater tendency of employers to terminate staff and send them home. Carrying out a threat of early repatriation now and then with workers who speak up is actually something the boss needs to do, in order to keep the rest of his workforce in fear.

Workers are easily replaced by fresh “imports”. There is the added advantage of another round of inducements. Fresh workers pay thousands of dollars for a job, as mentioned above, and it is an open secret that employment agents often share their profits with bosses. Also, new workers start at the bottom of the pay scale, which saves cost again.

This is what I mean by ‘churn’. The system encourages employers to send experienced workers back and bring in inexperienced ones.


Two essential paths to productivity improvement

An understanding of the above dynamics leads to two easy conclusions if the aim is to improve productivity — these apply largely to non-domestic workers:

1.  Create a slight shortage of foreign workers;

2.  Retain experienced workers for as long as possible and partially close the door to fresh workers.

There is no greater incentive for employers to find ways of improve productivity than to realise that manpower is short and will remain short for the foreseeable future. MOM is already doing this through a gradual tightening of quotas. The employer simply has to make do with fewer people, relying instead on mechanisation, skill, experience, and a motivated workforce.

But reducing quotas is only half the answer. Retaining experienced workers (especially if they’ve been taught to handle equipment) is needed too. Retention doesn’t have to mean working for the same employer. In many industries, especially in construction, business goes up and down. Singapore’s interest is served by keeping the worker within our economy, not necessarily in any particular company.

This means that the present practice of tying a worker to a company, but chucking him out of Singapore as soon as the company no longer wants him, is a wrongheaded way of doing things.

It is thus important to allow existing workers to find new jobs locally if they are no longer needed by their current employers, or if they are unhappy with their present bosses. The need to obtain a formal “release” is anachronistic; bosses use such control to intimidate their employees and defeat the national interest.

Giving employers easy access to an infinite pool of labour abroad reinforces employers' control and exploitation of existing employees

Giving employers easy access to an infinite pool of labour abroad reinforces employers’ control and exploitation of existing employees

However, retention will be compromised if bosses have access to an unlimited pool of fresh workers from abroad, despite lower quotas. Why should they hire an experienced guy who is already in Singapore (and because of experience, cost more) when they can get a cheaper, new worker from abroad who will even pay a handsome inducement to obtain a job?

It will be quite likely, as quotas are tightened, that inducement will go up — it’s a simple supply-and-demand thing — making it yet more attractive for a boss to hire a fresh worker from abroad.


The solution must involve partially closing the door to bringing in new workers. The state needs to create a bias in favour of experienced workers who are already here. TWC2 proposes that work permit applications for fresh workers from abroad should suffer a delay of about two months in processing time to make it more attractive to hire the more experienced localised worker. If employers still keep hiring from abroad, MOM can lengthen the delay until there is sufficient disincentive to bring in fresh inexperienced workers.

Cut out rapacious agents

It may be argued that in fact many of the workers brought in to work here aren’t “fresh” — meaning that they have worked in Singapore before, except that they had to be sent home after their old work permits expired or were cancelled. In such cases, these can be experienced workers too.

But that’s still a problem. Being stuck in their home countries, the only way they can get new jobs in Singapore is through employment agents, both of the licensed and unlicensed kind, but almost all of a Shylock disposition. The hopeful workers typically have to pay these agents the equivalent of six months’ basic salary to get a job. This sunk cost then leaves them with very few options when, after arrival here, they find themselves with an unreasonable or abusive boss. And the boss knows that, which makes it easier for him to exploit his power.

Allowing workers to look for new jobs while they are still in Singapore (having exited an old job, either voluntarily or involuntarily) means they don’t have to rely on rapacious employment agents. In turn, it means they don’t have that sunk cost and don’t have to fear the new boss as much.

Rebalancing this power equation between foreign worker and employer makes for a happier workforce, and signals to the company that workers are valuable . . . which should concentrate minds on getting better productivity out of them, to stay competitive.

Workers get 60 days to look for new jobs

TWC2 proposes that a worker who is already here, after being terminated or resigning from one job, gets up to 60 days to look for a new job. If he manages to find a new job, his previous employer will not need to fly him home and will have the bond discharged. The new employer will execute a new bond when taking up a work permit for him, and undertake the responsibility of flying the employee home in future.

Other considerations

Some Singaporeans may wonder about job competition if foreign workers are allowed to look for new jobs, though TWC2 doesn’t discuss this question in its proposals. Such worry would be misplaced, firstly because foreign workers are subject to industry classification, so they are easily restricted to say, construction, landscaping or shipyards/marine — industries that few Singaporeans want to work in. Secondly, employers will still be governed by foreign worker quotas, so it’s not as if employers can replace a Singaporean worker with a foreign work permit holder.

Making hiring a purely local affair has the added advantage of locating within Singapore jurisdiction any demand by employers for payment in exchange for getting a job. Currently, these inducements (which are illegal and a form of corruption) are negotiated in the home countries before the fresh worker comes here. Payment is also bundled with placement agency fees, and transacted abroad, making it difficult to prosecute under Singapore law. But as more and more job negotiations are localised — and a whistle-blowing hotline is set up — such attempts by employers to get workers to pay for their jobs can be caught and prosecuted. Of course, there must be political will to prosecute, which so far, we haven’t seen. After all, as mentioned above, many workers are asked to pay their bosses an average of a thousand dollars for the chance of work permit renewal. It’s an illegal transaction that is entirely local, yet I can’t immediately recall any case of MOM prosecuting an employer for making such demands.

An extra benefit of foreign workers staying on longer in Singapore is that they acquire language skills and adjust to our social and cultural expectations. Just through a short conversation with a foreign worker from India or Bangladesh, I can make a pretty good guess how long he has been in Singapore. Someone who has stayed five or six years is far more likely to be able to understand me if I speak normally. He is also able to give me a reply without struggling to find the right words, often responding with a hint of Singlish too. It goes without saying that better communication skills allow a worker to work more efficiently alongside Singaporeans and people of other nationalities.

Right index finger had to be amputated

Right index finger had to be amputated

As much as we have discussed this proposal (allowing foreign workers to change jobs locally) from the perspective of productivity, it is as important, if not more so, to see the issue through the lens of human rights. It is plain wrong to create a regulatory system that ties a worker so closely to the employer, such that the worker becomes subject to intimidation and exploitation. Some egregious cases that I have seen display several markers of human trafficking, e.g. misrepresentation of the terms of a job to induce workers to come to Singapore (only to dramatically change the salary and deductions after arrival) , and debt bondage.

It is a happy coincidence that we can address both the rights issue as well as the productivity issue through the same set of measures — freeing up the work permit holder to look for another job locally. So why not do so?

22 Responses to “Work permit holders should be free to change jobs”

  1. 1 Justin 7 November 2013 at 12:57

    Dont forget to inform us when MOM agrees with your proposals.

  2. 2 Howly 7 November 2013 at 13:45

    The PAP created this system of modern slavery. Because, just like COE, the PAP government, GLCs and its crony businesses also benefit from the system through the levies and lower labour cost, there is little to no incentive for the PAP to change such a system, especially when selfish voters are too stupid to realise that they are also indirectly disadvantaged by the system by having their pay suppressed.

    The only way I can see change is through educating the public that this system is wrong and that they have to vote against the PAP to signal that they do not want such a system. It is a complete waste of your time trying to engage MOM when the people on top are no interested in whatever proposal you have.

    Why not keep it for the future government? Let this regime rot till the point when enough people wake up to effect real change.

  3. 3 yuen 7 November 2013 at 13:48

    I believe the rationale for the current system is accountability: there is a specific employer to take responsibility for each work permit holder; if a ex-holder can stay here to look for another job, or can have job offer from another employer while still under sponsorship of current employer, things are not so simple for MOM.

    • 4 DetachedObserver 8 November 2013 at 12:22

      I will be honest, I smiled when I saw this. Accountability might be the rationale but let’s be frank, without true enforcement and lasting consequences from the authorities – which on their own have their own externalities – the externalities of tying employability to employers really makes no sense.

      I think it will better if we can all agree that immigration in Singapore – including the Permanent Residency scheme, and perhaps the bedrock of other policies like public housing, National Service, CPF – has to be re-looked at.

  4. 5 Saycheese 8 November 2013 at 04:12

    The MOM long ago knew of these defects that you pointed out but the government have not bothered to correct them.

    One can only conclude that if Singapore is not benefiting from those rules disadvantaging workers on work permit, the party or at least someone from the party is, hence the great reluctance to change the practices.

  5. 6 kevin 8 November 2013 at 13:13

    Alex, I’d like to get your opinion on what this might do for locals’ wages.

    The current system gives employers a lot of power, which means they can depress wages for foreign workers. This in turn leads to low wages for locals in these jobs as they have to compete with foreigners.

    Giving foreign workers the ability to switch jobs gives them more bargaining power for higher wages.

    As the skills and experience of existing foreign workers increase, and the flow of new foreign workers reduced, employers should be willing to pay existing foreign workers more as well.

    Eventually, this should lead to foreign workerS getting higher wages, which should in turn raise the salaries of local workers doing similar jobs as well. It should also encourage investment in training and technology (thus creating more high paying jobs) to increase productivity instead of relying on an endless supply of cheap human beings.

    Would you agree with that?

  6. 9 henry 8 November 2013 at 14:14

    “…At first sight, nothing has changed; $16 + $3 = $19. But look closer and you’ll see that his overtime rate has been lowered. Instead of being based on $19 per day ($2.375 per hour x 1.5), it has been re-based on $16 per day ($2.00 per hour x 1.5)…”,

    Oh! but this technique has been practiced by many companies in Singapore and to all employees! With tacit approval of their unions too!
    A famous airline & a local bus company here has been doing this for decades! Shame to the HR departments… professionals? my foot!

  7. 10 yawningbread 9 November 2013 at 09:19

    Great article by Kirsten Han:

    Which side will win in such a game of trade-offs? A comment Member of Parliament and chairman of the Migrant Workers Centre Yeo Guat Kwang made in 2010 might give an indication: “When we look at the migrant workers’ issue, we are not looking at it from the perspective of human rights… At the end of the day, whatever factors would be able to help us to sustain the growth of the economy for the benefit of our countrymen, for the benefit of our country; we will definitely go for it.”

  8. 12 Rabbit 9 November 2013 at 10:08

    MOM is probably waiting for instruction from our “Labour Union”. Without an effective labour Union to fight for workers in Singapore, MOM is very much as crippling as a lame dick. Didn’t Lim Boon Heng try very hard to justify his tenure in NTUC was like running a big “commercial corporation” to be able to put him in Temasek now? That very much sum up the true color of NTUC as big employer, not a labour union. If employer like NTUC did not benefit from TWC2’s proposal, NTUC will exert pressure on MOM not to go ahead with your proposal and than staged scare-mongering or motherhood statements to justify its firm stand. MOM may find it fit to echo NTUC’s stand too. Not forgetting ST, another govt mouthpiece, writing deligently for its master to sweep TWC2’s proposal into oblivion. This whole system in Singapore is called “tripartism”.

    Let’s see if what I said is indeed true eventually, when the govt respond to TWC2’s proposal.

  9. 13 ape@kinjioleaf 9 November 2013 at 22:29

    I’m not certain if giving foreign workers such flexibility is a good idea.
    Employers have to invest quite a sum to get a foreign worker to work here. What I gathered over coffee talks was that it is employers actually have to pay more for a foreign worker, if you consider the airfare, levy, insurance, accommodation, medical expenses etc . However, very few Singaporeans would want to take up the low skilled jobs. Here, I’m talking about employers who go by the books. Not the wayward ones who receives cutbacks from dubious agents.
    However, not allowing FW to change employers, even if they may have a case against existing employers, are giving opportunities to the rotten eggs employers.
    Would a system where aggrieved FW, while pending investigations, are allowed to be seconded to another employer with good track record, , works?

    • 14 yawningbread 9 November 2013 at 23:35

      Your list comprises two very different things: employers’ sunk costs and employers’ ongoing costs.

      The only sunk cost in your list is airfare. It’s the only thing that comes close to the word “invest”. This won’t be a cost if the company chooses to hire a migrant worker who is already in Singapore and looking for a new job — as in TWC2’s proposals. Or if taking fresh workers from abroad, the easiest thing to do is to make fresh foreign workers bear their own cost of airfare. Either they pay upfront in Zhengzhou, Dhaka, Chennai or Yangon for the air ticket, or if the employer buys for them, they get it deducted from the first 3 months’ salary. (These are not TWC2’s proposals, but my idea)

      That way, the sunk cost is eliminated.

      All the rest you mentioned — levy, accommodation, insurance, medical expenses — are only incurred for those months that the worker is with the employer. So what if the worker quits? there is no sunk cost lost. If you get a replacement worker, you incur exactly the same cost for the new guy.

      In fact, insurance and medical expenses are also incurred for Singaporean workers, so if employers of Singaporean workers don’t complain of “sunk costs” in order to forbid Singaporeans from resigning, why should they forbid foreign workers from resigning?

      As for levy, the equivalent for the Singaporean worker is that the employer has to pay employer’s CPF.

      As for accommodation, while it is true that Singaporean workers rarely get this benefit-in-kind (except maybe chief executives), nonetheless (as the SBS bus drivers strike case showed) employers pay foreign workers a lower cash salary anyway, to offset the accommodation costs.

      The possibility of unhappy workers walking off the job, should concentrate employers’ minds how to make jobs meaningful, keep team spirit up, and create a happier workforce. All lead to better productivity.

      There is no clear separation between “good employers” and “bad employers”. It’s a continuum, and there is the added problem of how we can rightly categorise them, without the “bad apples” first being convicted in a court of law. Otherwise, would it be fair to merely go on accusation? But then again, MOM generally takes the position that if an employer has been convicted of an Employment Act infringement, he won’t be able to get work permit quotas anyway, so all the “bad apples” are currently considered “good employers” simply by virtue of the fact that they can get quota. Given this reality, it’s hard to design a policy whereby workers of some employers can resign and workers of other employers cannot resign — as you have suggested.

      • 15 ape@kinjioleaf 9 November 2013 at 23:43

        Thanks for the clarifications with regards to costs.

        I’m given the impression that employers have to bear full medical costs of a FW, be it a common cold or a work related injury (besides workmen compensation that includes all workers). I must be mistaken then.

      • 16 yawningbread 10 November 2013 at 09:57

        It is. Employers of foreign are required to take out insurance for (a) medical expenses up to $15,000 for each migrant worker and (b) work injury treatment and compensation. Not much different from Singaporean employees who expect their employment contracts to include medical coverage; and by law employers must take out insurance too for work injury treatment and compensation for their local employees.

        The big picture is this: The government has never wanted to design a system that made foreign workers expensive; they wanted to make them cheap. They wouldn’t have added costs onto the employer that made foreign workers more expensive than Singaporeans. On the contrary, to make them cheap, they designed a system that gave enormous exploitative power to employers. But now we see the terrible external side-effects of this approach:

        • – low productivity,
        • – impact on Singaporeans’ salaries,
        • – unsustainably large numbers of foreign workers on our island,
        • – a mountain of labour disputes requiring an enormous bureaucracy that can barely cope.
      • 17 Joseph 10 November 2013 at 00:57

        Hey, why bother so much? Since the system is rotten, change the government lah!

  10. 18 henry 10 November 2013 at 14:51

    It is a pity that cost profit rings clear as a bell to all employers but ethics is completely missing. HR practitioners have a role here, but they seem to be just towing the line.

    Being an employer myself, ( one domestic helper ) I know the costs involved. But I also have a moral compass. How much money can I deduct for dental treatments, influenza, phone calls etc?.. it is a moral duty not only to have medical treatment available but also to pay for it. They simply do not have sufficient funds.

    It has come to a stage where injured employees ( foreign workers ) have been dumped on the streets. Just to avoid penalties and payments. I just do not know how these people have been brought up. They fear the loss of quotas more than God!!

  11. 19 adam 10 November 2013 at 22:12

    While gov policies and actions/inactions may have created such a foreign worker situation, I feel that such inhuman treatment of foreign low skilled workers has been ingrained into Singaporean mindset for the past few decades. Just look at how foreign domestic helpers are treated!

    Rather than saying that the situation is caused by gov policy/inaction, I feel that the lack of morals and ethics to do whats right also contribute to it. You might say that after years of mistreating domestic helpers (or seeing our parents lord over them when we are growing up), we become conditioned to think of foreign low skill laborers as less than human. But I don’t buy it. People who do that have simply lost their humanity.

    • 20 Hazeymoxy 11 November 2013 at 15:00

      Oh yes, totally agree on this one. How on earth so many people have come to the conclusion that foreign blue collar workers or domestic helpers are beneath us and should be treated like slaves is beyond me.

  12. 21 Winking Doll 11 November 2013 at 06:48

    The problems of abuse and/or inhumane treatment of foreign work permit holders exist not only in the low-skilled industries, e.g. construction, landscaping or shipyards/marine — industries that few Singaporeans want to work in — but also in the skilled industries e.g. healthcare/nursing.

    E.g. I have personally witnessed a foreign-trained nurse secretly crying as she was forced to return to work at a ward where she was being abused by the “senior” (i.e. long-service) staff. The management told the foreign nurse that if she could not take the abuse, she could quit if she paid-up her bond. [Note: Being newly recruited from overseas, the management knew that the foreign nurse did not have the savings to pay up her bond.]

    IMHO, the issue is that many Singaporeans are either oblivious to the sufferings of the foreign workers, or worse, hold the attitude that the foreign labour deserved inferior treatment simply because “they would be worse-off unemployed in their own countries.”

    I agree with adam who commented on 10 November 2013 at 22:12 that Singaporeans “become conditioned to think of foreign low skill laborers as less than human.”

  13. 22 Chanel 12 November 2013 at 16:38

    “It should be mandatory for employers to pay a worker’s salary into a bank account controlled exclusively by the employee.”

    The above is one of the easiest for MOM to implement and has been recommended by TWC2 for years. I wonder why MOM is still dragging its feet on this. What is MOM afraid of? That MOM would get a deluge of wage disputes?

    Instead of stating “MOM takes a serious view of….” or “MOM will not hesitate to take errant employers to task…”, MOM should put labour laws where its mouth is!! Making motherhood statements will not make the problem disappear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: