HIV/AIDS Student Group Banned in Xinjiang

I urge everyone to read the entirety of this post, though it is long. This is because I quote in length from a blog that may very well go dark any day now.

Some of you may have read at The Opposite End of China a China Daily article on 19 middle school students being thrown out of school for being hepatitis-B carriers. While the schools involved claimed the students were contagious and they were complying with health regulations, China Daily also reported:

Zhang Yuexin, a senior expert from the Xinjiang Liver Disease Centre, disagreed, telling the Nanfang Daily: “There is nothing wrong with their liver functions. Viruses are duplicating inside their bodies, but do not show they are in an acute period.”

“What the schools have done is not legal. Even if the students are Hepatitis-B virus carriers, they still have the right to a normal school life,” a local lawyer named Zhang Yuanxin told China Daily.

In addition, the Health Minister Mao Qun’an said “this is prejudice”. Attention was brought to the issue by a group called Xuelianhua, or “Snow Lotus”, HIV/AIDS Education Institute (新疆《雪莲花艾滋简讯》). Xuelianhua was started in early 2005 and quickly began organizing students at four Urumqi universities, including my old stomping grounds Xinjiang Finance Institute. They later were given funding by the Global Fund To Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (the same group that, among other things, has brought you Bono and Oprah in (RED) t-shirts) and named a national member of the council for NGOs fighting HIV/AIDS. Chang Kun also was interviewed about his outreach to young gays in Urumqi (Chinese article). On his blog, founder Chang Kun further lists (in an open English letter, with further information in Chinese and English):

Our organization has promoted four HIV/AIDS university student associations, organized red ribbon student activities and participation of minority students in cure and prevention. Snow Lotus also organized the 2005 second forum for students and HIV/AIDS, organized Xinjiang university peer education workshops, set up a spot
for free condom delivery, care and protection for children living with HIV/AIDS, organized the first university enrollment for students living with HIV/AIDS, organized Xinjiang debate on homosexuals self identity and HIV/AIDS education, scheduled public visits to beauty salons’ outpatient services, held public conferences on the use of medication for people suffering from contagious diseases, helped students suspended from school to make legal appeals, set up a channel to share and deliver information as well as the regular publication “Snow Lotus Aids News Brief” with more than one thousand members subscribed. In 2006, Snow Lotus applied and received funding from the NGO “Global Fund for HIV/AIDS tuberculosis and malaria”.

So what happened next? According to Reuters:

China has banned an unregistered non-governmental AIDS group founded by university students in the far western region of Xinjiang, an activist and a lawyer said on Thursday.

The “Snow Lotus” AIDS education group, which had over 200 mainly university student volunteers, was closed down on Wednesday by the local government for not having registered with them, activist Chang Kun told Reuters.

On his blog, Chang Kun details:

On 10 October 2006, the incident regarding those 19 students suspended from school was reported in the national media and the main representatives of the local departments of education were condemned. After this, Snow Lotus received increased pressure from the local authorities. Even more volunteers were taken away for interrogation and there was even one university student who was held at the police station until after midnight.

On 13 October, I was interrogated for seven hours and was warned that Snow Lotus should not carry out any work again. This included withdrawal from the Global Fund HIV/AIDS Project,. I was threatened with arrest if I failed to comply with this warning.

At ten o’clock in the morning of 18 October 2006, while I was doing training in the work unit, I was summoned to the security department of the university. I was interrogated by personnel from the Xinjiang NGO Legal Bureau and by police officers. After that, they came to my residence and to the Snow Lotus office together with directors from the university and carried out an investigation. At noon, the Xinjiang NGO Legal Bureau showed me the “Notice on the Legal Ban of Illegal NGOs”, a document which I had printed myself long ago, and declared the ban of Snow Lotus HIV/AIDS Education Institute. The alleged reason was that the organization was not registered as an NGO but was carrying out activities as such. At the same time, they also threatened me and said I should “immediately stop those illegal activities, otherwise the organization would be sanctioned according to regulations issued by the relevant legislation, the legal code of administrative sanctions and the relevant departments”.

After that, my residence was closed down and the materials, articles, hard drives and computer in Snow Lotus were confiscated. During this process, I argued with them, closed my personal email account but they didn’t show any consideration. I received a hard psychological blow and was brought to tears several times. I opened the
window, willing to jump out as a sign of protest, but they just sat by unconcerned. They didn’t show the slightest intention to stop me. Only one of my teachers held me back.

From 4 October, many Snow Lotus volunteers, myself included, were the object of several interrogations. We had to bear a lot of pressure and great psychological strain. Moreover, I received threats and this made me lose all sense of safety. Today’s process of confiscation was also a psychological trauma for me. I had to leave Urumuqi, a city which I love and for which I have worked hard to develop work on HIV/AIDS prevention.

Financial Times has a good article, pointing out:

NGOs operate in a difficult regulatory environment in China. Activists say that registration procedures remain onerous and have largely been frozen by officials concerned about the development of “civil society� groups that might some day challenge the Communist party’s monopoly on power.

Aids NGOs have been given greater freedom to operate, after pressure from international organisations and a growing awareness in the government that they can reach out much more effectively to vulnerable groups.

However, Aids groups say that they remain subject to harassment and interference, and mutual suspicions prompted a bitter dispute in April over elections of non-governmental and patients’ representatives to the China board of the Global Fund.

Given the China Daily coverage of the Hepatitis-B case (and there are numerous Chinese language versions across the net, Xinhua, for example), I think there’s more here than simply a troubled relationship between China and NGOs. It is the provincial and municipal government that appears to have taken action against Snow Lotus after being embarassed in the national press. Now, if only Baidu would show me the national press is following up. I am not holding my breath.

Xuelianhua’s official site is, or, but in reality both domain names route you to a Google Groups page. Chang Kun’s blog is on MSN Spaces. Chinese offficial estimates reported 16,035 HIV carriers in Xinjiang as of this June, but this is misleading since that is clearly the official confirmed cases. As Bates Gill and Song Gang reported in the latest China and Eurasia Forum Quarterly (PDF):

The number of confirmed HIV/AIDS cases in Xinjiang reached 16,035 as of June 30, 2006. But according to official estimates, there are some 60,000 HIV-positive persons living in Xinjiang, making it the fourth most-affected province in terms of total cases. On a per-capita basis, Xinjiang is easily the heaviest-hit province by a large margin: Xinjiang accounts for a little more than one percent of China’s population, but about 10 percent of its estimated HIV population.

The Uyghur population is disproportionately affected by the HIV/AIDS crisis in Xinjiang, partly due to lack of medical facilities (mother to child transmission has increased – never a good sign), partly due to a lack of education, and partly due to the related problem of intravenous drug use. Other vectors, unsurprisingly, involve commercial sex workers and migrants. Of course, while governments may not act quickly enough when only a discriminated minority is primarily at risk, HIV does not see ethnicity as an obstacle. NGOs are largely recognized as critical in providing awareness and prevention, and no matter how much money the Clinton Foundation, the Australian government or the Global Fund pours into the region, it won’t be worth a damn if the locals can’t form their own civic groups – many of which die stillborn because of the fear of reprisal. Chang Kun stood up to be counted, and was run out of town.

The Discussion: 37 Comments

Same story as usual. Communist officials put their paranoid concerns of control over the well-being of the people under them.

Sometimes I think the CCP is resembling Kim’s North Korean regime more and more these days – so long as they have their private cars and banquets, who cares about the populace, so long as they’re obedient? The only reason government tries to “do” something is because they’re scared of being overthrown. If they could control them like robots, I don’t think they’d do nearly as much as they do.

October 22, 2006 @ 3:12 am | Comment

I don’t think it’s necessarily that simple Raj – its the local government that seems to have cracked down, while the central government seems to have reluctantly gone ahead with allowing Xuelianhua and others to participate in the Global Fund and other international networks. This isn’t simply the CCP. This is about specific actors, and to paint the entire government at both the local and national level with the same broad brush is to do a disservice to the truth. After all, national news saw fit to broadcast the embarassment of local discrimination against hep-B carriers. Even if it was only certain members of a government-controlled press, that does mean there are members of the government who support these NGOs. There is fear of civic society groups forming alternate frameworks to challenge the government, but this seems like pure vendetta. The local officials were embarassed in the national press, and lashed out at the source of the embarassment. I don’t think it’s explained by generalizing Communist paranoia or comparisons to NORK.

October 22, 2006 @ 3:59 am | Comment

dave, at the end of the day the CCP is one organisation. Sure there are many members, but if the central authorities can’t control the peripheries then they are responsible for being unable/unwilling to get involved.

The CCP claims legitimacy from (amongst other things) the theory that only it can “control” China efficiently. If its defence to these sorts of events is some sob-story about how it would like to help, but evil, local administrations won’t listen to it (despite the fact no one at local/regional level is immune from being fired/arrested during the middle of the night) then that just does not cut any ice for me.

If these politicians were advocating multi-party democracy, or even encouraging Beijing to rethink its Taiwan policy, we know what would happen. There is no way I am going to let central government members have their cake (arrest “politicial dissidents”) and eat it (claim they can’t take action against local officials).

October 22, 2006 @ 4:57 am | Comment

But in the end, Dave, will the national government back up the local and provincial governments in the name of stability like it did with the local elections gone sour?

October 22, 2006 @ 5:15 am | Comment

As for painting the entire Communist Party (I refuse to call China’s leaders “the government” because that neutral term implies some legitimacy) with a broad brush, look, I’m one of the most anti-CCP guys among you, and yet even I will acknowledge that some CCP members, as individuals, are decent people with some good intentions, and some of them occasionally even do good things within the CCP structure.

But it’s still a vicious dictatorship, and to make fine distinctions between what local governments do versus the national government is, in the end, a sophistry, because the national CCP dictatorship is what enables and sustains the tyrannies of the local governments.

And even the Nazi Party had a few good eggs like Oskar Schindler.

October 22, 2006 @ 11:11 am | Comment

Dave, thanks for the great post, depressing and distressing though it may be. I’ve written many times here about the idiotic, infuriating injustices of China’s treratment of both hepatitis B carriers and victims of HIV/AIDS – few topics about China raise my blood pressure as do these. As with literally every issue in China, there are multiple sides to the story and the usual plethora of contradictions. There are plenty of stories over the past two years of China making serious strides to deal with AIDS and become more tolerant. And then there are the usual steps backward.

On a related note, I hope you’ve all seen the recent post in the Duckpond about this article on intolerance of AIDS patients in Taiwan. Prejudice and ignorance have no respect for geographical boundaries.

October 22, 2006 @ 11:20 am | Comment

You pathetic moroon. Could someone clean up the mess please?

October 22, 2006 @ 1:41 pm | Comment

Fat Cat: done.

October 22, 2006 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

Thanks at Cat. It (the troll) has been bombarding my site all day, and I have strong suspicions about who it is.

October 22, 2006 @ 1:45 pm | Comment

By the way, it’s spelled, “moran.”

October 22, 2006 @ 1:46 pm | Comment

I’m just sorry these freaks have to ruin a thread on a very serious subject. Let’s please try to get back to Dave’s great post.

October 22, 2006 @ 1:48 pm | Comment

Sorry about the spelling mistake. That’s what moran like that do to a cat.

October 22, 2006 @ 1:57 pm | Comment

Alright then. Scrolling back up, I share Raj’s perception that the CCP is going backwards and becoming rapidly more ideologically intransigent (and even recidivist) under Hu Jintao. Earlier today I tortured myself by watching a CCTV broadcast (I suppose as an act of penance for all my sins; this should earn me at least 5,000 years reprieve from my 10,000 year sentence in Purgatory) of the central Party’s celebrations of the anniversary of the Long March – and I swear, Hu Jintao used the word “LENINIST” at least ten times, probably more.

In other words, mainstream effete Western journalists and pundits might think today’s CCP has jettisoned Leninism – but Hu Jintao’s CCP sure as hell don’t think so.

And – like the North Korean Communists – the CCP leaders perceive no absurdity at all in appealing to the “correct” path of Leninism as their official guide to the 21st century.

Rising power! HA! In the long run, Lenin will lead Hu Jintao’s Communist Party to ruin. The only question is how much China and the world can control and limit the inevitable catastrophe of the collapse of China’s Communist government.

October 22, 2006 @ 2:11 pm | Comment

Now lets go back to the original topic of this thread.

Dave, I appreciate your comment about the need to make a distinction between central government and local/provincial government policies. It’s true to a very large extent. But my personal encounters with central government officials in China (which I can’t give details) seem to suggest that the central government’s attitude towards NGO is nothing short of hostile. Their attitude towards national minorities and AIDS sufferer are bordering on discrimination. On that basis, I really can’t discount the possibility that what’s described at Chang Kun’s blog is very much actions sanctioned by the central government.

October 22, 2006 @ 2:19 pm | Comment

Took me a minute to get to responding; some fumigating had to be done around here. Ahem:

@Sonagi: I mention in the article I’m not holding my breath on it, but I’d like to see the Chinese media follow up. The founder, Chang Kun, also seems to spend alot of time on the net – he’s on and an assortment of message boards as well, so I’m curious if anything will happen on the net.

@Raj: Look, I’m no fan of the CCP either. My point is neither to defend it from criticism, nor to claim it doesn’t attempt to monopolize political power. My point is I want to understand the processes within the Party: how did Xinhua coverage of the hep-B story come about in the first place, if Beijing protects the local officials? What happened to the reporter on that one? Which local officials are we talking about (Chang Kun mentions the NGO legal bureau and the police… which police station? Which officers?)? Is Zhongnanhai even aware? I somehow doubt that… These are the questions I want answers to. Rather than wrap it up as “all of the CCP is responsible”.

@Fat Cat: I wouldn’t say bordering on discrimination, I’d say it IS discrimination against minorities and AIDS sufferers. But it’s not simply the governments attitude: it’s the entire country. Let’s face it, China is full of kneejerk prejudice. The government is a reflection of the public more than vice versa in this case. That’s not uncommon in any political system.

Beijing may have sanctioned this or may not. The Central government also sanctioned this group becoming a national rep to the Global Fund. Rebiya Kadeer was a similar story: an NPC member and a national rep to the UN Beijing Conference on Women – thrown in prison for newspapers. If the Central govt was involved, why would it allow these people more and more prominence in the first place?

And the Central government is not monolithic either. Anybody remember Pan Yue openly criticizing the environmental impact of China’s growth? There are different sides, even if they are all within the Party. And for anyone seeking a democratic revolution in China, consider it this way: if China ever does have some sort of coup, there’s going to be people within the Party and the military who make it happen.

October 22, 2006 @ 3:41 pm | Comment


The Nazi Party was not “monolithic” either, but that didn’t mean it was capable of reforming itself.

October 22, 2006 @ 4:03 pm | Comment

To the recurrent troll: Dude, you’ve been jacking off on this thread all day. Why are you spending your Sunday this way? Haven’t you ever heard of football and beer? Or porn?

October 22, 2006 @ 4:13 pm | Comment

@Ivan: I’m not saying it can reform itself. West Germany eventually ended up re-employing alot of ex-nazi bureaucrats and civil servants, yknow. I’m just saying if/when a new government is built, who do you think is going to build it? Dissidents? Taiwanese? Migrant workers?

October 22, 2006 @ 4:14 pm | Comment

Well as you know I’m a great fan of Gorbachev, who after all was a former Communist Party member (to say the least.) Something like Gorbachev’s peaceful revolution is the best thing China could hope for, but (compared to Russia), given the relatively low level of Chinese education, the demolition of their moral heritage, and their (again, compared to Russia) almost total disregard for History or for facing unpleasant truths, I’m afraid the long term prospects for China are not good.

Thus, I care more about whether China can avoid something approximating total anarchy, than about any kind of pipe dream of “democratisation” in the PRC. However, I think we all continue to place the PRC in even MORE danger of chaos if we collaborate with Communists’ habit of Lies and Fantasies. There’s actually relatively little that Westerners can do for the PRC, but collaborating with their lies just makes it all worse.

October 22, 2006 @ 4:27 pm | Comment

@Ivan: agreed, long term prospects are… dim.

But are you saying my position reminds you of one that collaborates with the lies? Or was that a more general point?

October 22, 2006 @ 4:37 pm | Comment

It’s true, the way they’ve (mis)managed things, there is no other force in China that can possibly step into the CCP’s shoes. It somewhat reminds me of Iraq. Vile though the Ba’athists may have been, we needed to work with them if we were to maintain order. Instead, we outlawed and fired them, leaving a vacuum that led directly to the current anarchy. Replacing the CCP, if it ever happens, will be a long, hard slog. Bad as they are, there is really no viable alternative right now, and the best we can do is hope for increasing reform. When the economy finally slows down and people feel the pain of recession or deflation – that could be the catalyst that forces the party to open things up, the way Gorbachev opened things up in the late 80s.

October 22, 2006 @ 5:31 pm | Comment

Dave, I think what Ivan meant is that China is susceptible to anarchism. The only way to prevent that from happening is through the kind of education reform that would encourage independent thinking. Government propaganda goes against this reform effort.

October 22, 2006 @ 5:33 pm | Comment

@Richard: Alot of the Ba’athists were probably people trying to the most good out of a bad system. Some of them were vile; others were people caught up in the gears.

@Fat Cat: Yes, and I agree with Ivan! This is one of the reasons I was arguing for Wang Hui in a previous discussion at the Granite Studio. And ironically, I think the CCP agrees with Ivan too; one of their biggest fears is anarchism, and I don’t think solely because it would mean their loss of power. A great deal of people in the Party honestly believe what they do is for the greater good, to protect the Chinese people from that anarchism. I’m not saying they’re right, but they believe they are good.

“The only way to prevent that from happening is through the kind of education reform that would encourage independent thinking. Government propaganda goes against this reform effort.”

Yes, but this begs the question: who is going to do it in their place? If the CCP is the problem, and they go away, what will replace them? There’s no way a new government would form without an enormous amount of participation from those that belong to the Party and the military today. All the more reason not to condemn the Party as “one organization” of evil, as Raj is doing, because one day, when there’s a new government, it’s going to be imperative to know who the players are and what differentiated them during CCP rule. These distinctions are critical, and to simply say it is one organization that is responsible is unproductive.

October 22, 2006 @ 5:45 pm | Comment

Dave, absolutely right about the Ba’Athists, and same with the CCP. They may suck in many ways, but we can’t just gut them out of the system. At least not without getting their help first in.

I actually think we are mostly in agreement about this. The CCP isn’t going away, it’s not an instrument of pure evil (neither is the Bush administration, no matter how much I detest it) and it’s going to play a key role in whatever comes next. That’s the ugly reality.

October 22, 2006 @ 5:54 pm | Comment

Dave, I’ll address your comments in 2 parts:

1. Who is responsible for education reform: Dave, you have to remember that Raj, Ivan and I (and possibly you) are all educators one way or the other. I can’t speak for the others. But when I’m talking about education reforms in China, I’m thinking more in line of what we as educators can do to help transform this culture. You can say that I’m very naïve, but if I’ve left all education reforms to the Australian government (or the University bureaucrats), our education system would have long collapsed. I’m not directly involved in education in China, but at least I can play a monitoring role through posting comments at different discussion forums. This, to me, is a very important way of encouraging freedom of speech and independent thinking on topics related to China.

2. Is CCP the problem or the solution: The CCP’s rejection of the anarchist movement did very little to hide the fact that many of its early leaders started their involvement in politics as anarchists. Anarchism in modern Chinese history carried with it an excessive glorification of science and an extreme disdain for Confucianism and traditional culture. This kind of cultural attitude is still by and large upheld by the Chinese communist government today through its enormous propaganda machine. So here we are obviously facing a dilemma: If the CCP loses its grip on power today, China will possibly dive into anarchism. But the prolonging of CCP’s lies through its propaganda machine will plunge China even deeper into the abyss of anarchism in the long run. As Richard has correctly pointed out, once the economic boom is over, there’s very little to stop Chinese people from demanding a regime change. Think about it, this is a no win situation.

October 22, 2006 @ 6:28 pm | Comment

“This is prejudice”, so what? Prejudice can hardly be an indictment in China. Not only the regime is based on all kinds of prejudice to tighten their grip on power, but the general public tolerate it as long as they are not on the wrong side of it.

October 22, 2006 @ 6:48 pm | Comment

Dave, I was making a more general point, and once again Fat Cat has come close to taking the words out of my mouth.

As far as the CCP agreeing with me, well yes but only insofar as I’m worried about anarchy. But I disagree entirely with the Communists about the main cause of the PRC’s danger of anarchy: The ultimate source of the problem is the CCP’s determination to live in, and to enforce belief in, an entirely unrealistic view of the Communist Party, of China’s history, of World History, and of Human Nature. Communism is a lie, the Communist Party was built on a foundation of lies and on a rejection of the very idea of the Rule of Law. THAT is why today’s PRC remains in danger of anarchy. The CCP’s dedication to fantasies and lies and superstitions, is the ultimate source of the problem.

“Overthrowing” the CCP won’t solve the problem, but cultivating more of the “habit of truth” will gradually reduce it. What will not help at all will be for the rest of the world to carry on indulging in the fantasy of China being a “rising power” because of some fake GDP statistics and ugly skyscrapers which remain largely empty and will fall down in a few years.

October 22, 2006 @ 6:52 pm | Comment

The troll who trashed the thread is a MORON, not moroon or moran.

October 22, 2006 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

Sonagi, no, according to THIS guy (a now infamous pro-Iraq war “protestor”), it’s spelled, “moran”:

“Moroon” is how Bugs Bunny pronounces it, and actually I thought that was Fat Cat’s intention. 🙂

October 22, 2006 @ 9:08 pm | Comment

No, the whole thing just shows that Fat Cat needs a new pair of reading glasses.

October 22, 2006 @ 10:07 pm | Comment

@Fat Cat: 1. If you’re saying that since the CCP monopolizes education, they’re solely responsible for reform, you’re right. My only point is there are different actors in the Party with different views on education. Professors I knew from SEZs who took up the offer to teach in Xinjiang were appalled at the way education was run in Xinjiang. There are massive differences and they lie between different factions of the Party, as well as those without.

2. I agree that its a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario. I’m not so certain that economic setbacks would trigger regime change. Again, I keep coming back to the same question: to what? If dissatisfaction grows to the point that Chinese people believe the CCP just has to go no matter what, I can’t imagine them agreeing on what will replace it. I can, however, imagine them using nationalism as the glue to “persevere through hard times”, especially if they can externalize blame. And I think that’s exactly what the CCP intends to do if things go to shit. And by and large I think it will work. Unfortunately.

Question Fat Cat: is your experience about the hostile reaction of the Central government to foreign NGOs, domestic, or both?

@Ivan: Like Richard, I think we’re all closer to agreement here than it might seem. But how, really, do you expect to cultivate the “habit of truth” when, as I’ve pointed out on such issues as social darwinism, that so much of Chinese national identity is entirely dependent on those fictions? Without sowing the anarchy you and I fear?

October 22, 2006 @ 10:14 pm | Comment

Dave, the hostile reaction was directed towards NGOs in general. And it’s not just from one official. I was very alarmed when the friendly conversation suddenly turned hostile when I mentioned the positive roles of NGOs in the post-Suharto period in Indonesia. I was then reminded that NGOs were synonymous with anti-Government activities in China.

October 22, 2006 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

Dave, you sound more pessimistic about the possibility for change than even I do. I, too, see the road to change as bleak and arduous, but just look at how far China has come in the past 20 years. You know there are so many wonderful and enlightened people there – enlightened despite the efforts of the state to keep them believing Lei Feng is the world’s greatest role model. Doesn’t this give you cause for hope? Maybe regime change, even in the face of an economic catastrophe, is unfeasible. The CCP will have to rule (or so it appears today). But there is more than one CCP. Can’t we at least pin some hope on the notion that the more enlightened side may one day prevail, especially as the Internet chips away at institutionalized ignorance?

October 22, 2006 @ 10:47 pm | Comment

@Fat Cat: post-Suharto would have the unfortunate linkage in the Chinese mind of NGO=Regime Change by Foreign Powers. Post-anything would. You’ve seen how they perceive the Color Revolutions, George Soros, etc. right?

@Richard: I agree there’s more than one CCP, and that’s precisely where I pin my hopes. But at the same time I think that those we would consider enlightened really don’t know how to deal with the deep seated contradictions within the current system without creating chaos. I don’t think anyone does, and that’s the hurdle that has to be leapt.

October 22, 2006 @ 11:12 pm | Comment

Can somebody provide links for chinese versions of this story? (not just the students getting booted out, but also Chang Kun’s subsequent troubles?)

October 23, 2006 @ 5:06 am | Comment


the site and Chang Kun’s blog at are both in Chinese

October 23, 2006 @ 12:40 pm | Comment

The article given above is very useful and informative

COSMIC TECHNOLOGIES – One stop shop for accounts, book keeping, taxation etc.,

October 25, 2006 @ 7:13 pm | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.