Search
👩🏻： photo time ❤️
🐶： 🙄
🥲I could feel how bun bun disapproved selfie 🤳
.
充滿歧視嘅眼神🥲
笨內心OS : 媽咪，大個啦，唔好咁啦
.
#hkig #hkdog #hkcorgi #love #cute #dog #dogoftheday #instadog #fluffy #welshcorgi #corgi #corgination #corgicommunity #corgisofinstagram #corgiaddict #myfavcorgi #pawsome #柯基 #哥基 #コーギー #愛犬 #短足部 #selfiewithdog #disapprovingcorgi #disapprovingcorgis
‘An English-speaking Mao Zedong’｜Lee Yee
In mid-November, a friend of mine, a youngster, texted me: “He’s really stingy.” I replied: “It’s OK! Even though we have been holding different views for years, he has been putting up with my audacity.”
Since we met because of June 4 at a dinner with other pro-democracy movement figures, we have been acquainted with each other for more than 30 years, during which we had frequent dealings and contact with one another for a number of years. Asked by him about how much money was needed for running a magazine, I, the operator of The 90s, a business with small capital, told him to put in ten times of mine for a weekly publication. In the end, he invested a hundred times of it in running the most influential magazine that cornered the market in town. Later on, he founded a newspaper which also changed the media ecology in Hong Kong, initiating an unprecedented market setting all at once.
Inspired by the democracy movement in Beijing to switch to another line of work, he surely did it for his compassion for China. I used to have it myself, and it stayed strong until June 4, after which I merely hoped for the indigenous values of Hong Kong to be preserved. In light of the Handover being imperative under the circumstances, to get the democratization of Hong Kong moving seemed to be the only way out, though I reckoned the chance of success was slender as well.
In terms of our beliefs in freedom, democracy and the rule of law, there hasn’t been much difference between us. As to our outlooks on the prospect of democracy of China and Hong Kong, I have always been pessimistic while he has always taken the opposite view. It is understandable because pessimism is never an obstacle to my writing while it is to an operation of such a big media business.
In 2005, I was invited by him to become a writer-turned-editor in charge of the opinion page. He promised me back then he would never meddle in my editorial orientation. As I recommended on purpose a commentator who had fallen foul of the paper, he consented without hesitation. It’s a shame that I was finally turned down by that commentator.
From being an editor to being fired nine years later, from writing editorials to writing a column, I have been disagreeing with him on a number of issues over the last decade: localists versus pro-Greater China camp, freedom of discussion about independence, evaluation of the youths and the valiant, support for or criticisms of the pan-democratic alliance, “conspiracy theories” in all previous elections… But as my boss, he has been putting up with me, delivering to me his opposite viewpoints through somebody else. And he never hampered me from publishing articles I showed him in advance that bluntly criticized him.
With his compassion for Greater China, opening up of China was definitely appealing to him. As far as I know, China did try quite a number of times to take him in in its united front work. There was an occasion that one of his good friends met him in Taiwan, saying to him that he was invited by the Chinese Communist Party(CCP) to pay a visit to China, that he was to be allowed to run newspapers there about everything – entertainments, sports and the society, except for politics, and that in view of the growing economy of China, he would earn a big fortune. No sooner had he finished listening to it than he called the security guards to send the guest off. Later, he explained to me why he did it so abruptly instead of euphemizing. He said he was actually afraid of not being able to resist the enticement, and that he would abstain from the principle of distancing himself from the power. Listening to the story about his being aware he would get feeble, I admired him in all sincerity.
At whiles I just think he displeased the CCP not because of his words and deeds, but the fact that he couldn’t tell good from bad. Who couldn’t be bought off? Not least he’s just a businessman. That was just so riling!
When the publication began in Taiwan, I was told that according to the tacit business regulation in Taiwan, kickbacks had to be given to those who were empowered to do ad placements from the clients’ side. Yet the boss disapproved of it, which made things difficult for the staff in the advertising department. I asked him why he couldn’t bend the rule a little. He said as we kept laying bare under-the-table deals among politicians and businessmen, it was hard to justify ourselves if we also engaged in the same dirty deals. He is really somebody who insists on complying with laws, attaches importance to rules and ethics. Whenever I think of such a person being imprisoned, I feel sorrowful about him and the society.
It has been more than a year since last time I got in touch with him that he gave me a call asking me to stop writing my memoir for a few days to talk about the anti-extradition movement in my column in March last year. That was the only time he has ever suggested a writing topic for me. I agreed for I was going to do the same thing.
The youngsters in touch with me have always been discontent with him and his paper because of a lot of events over more than a decade, but I have always told them to take a look at a bigger picture. He is said to be an English-speaking Mao Zedong in the newsroom. Maybe it’s true. Mao’s merits and demerits aside, his manifest stubbornness and insane words and deeds showed he was somebody that would achieve something big. Winston Churchill was also an eccentric and moody person, but he did a marvelous feat against all odds. It seems Trump belongs to the same category, so does he.
Time for a decisive battle (Lee Yee)
I wrote yesterday that “when the number of disqualified candidates reaches the maximum, the international community would come forth”. My friend reckons this a “new strategy”. Instead of a strategy, it is, I would say, the last option left by the National Security Law. Some agree, while others do not. A few raise questions or doubts. Here are my thoughts.
相關新聞：Paradoxical theory of Hong Kong organising U.S. riots (Lee Yee)
The US is leading the fight, with Japan coordinating with the foreign ministers of seven countries, the European Union claiming to indict China in the International Court of Justice in Hague, and the civilized world reacting way more intensely to the NSL than to the violation of human rights in Xinjiang concentration camp. Mike Pompeo’s comments, like “rogue behaviour” and “a choice between freedom and tyranny”, are harsh enough. All of this begs the question of what the US and the West are waiting for. With the NSL draft already released, why did Pompeo ask people to wait and see the results of the Legislative Council (LegCo) Election in September?
Although the NSL is disapproved by most of the civilized countries, both verbal censure and actual sanctions hinge on the LegCo Election in September - “an essential indicator”. But Why?
相關新聞：American violence v.s. Hong Kong violence (Lee Yee)
Pompeo has made it clear that if the CCP makes Hong Kong the same as Shanghai or Shen Zhen in the LegCo Election, the US will take Hong Kong as just another city in China, which means revoking all special treatment Hong Kong has been enjoying. Hong Kongers will be apparently victimized with a bitterly crumbling economy, even though Pompeo has not exactly said so.
Are Hong Kongers willing to be on the receiving end of it all? If Hong Kong’s pro-democracy camp shows acceptance of the NSL at the nomination stage of the LegCo Election, and gets elected with considerable votes, then the message delivered to the US would be that Hong Kongers are prepared to surrender to tyranny. To this end, the US will stop short of being meddlesome while deploying all defensive moves against Hong Kong like what it has been doing against China.
However, if Hong Kongers take to the streets as fiercely as what they did in the anti-extradition protests last year, it will go without saying that these freedom fighters are willing to stand at the frontline of global defence against tyranny.
The referendum on NSL walkout held last Saturday, which was not well publicized and prepared, has projected a wrong message to the international community: not many people are up in arms over the NSL. In light of this, the message conveyed to the world by the LegCo Election is pivotal.
The abovementioned pertain to the external situation. Internally, I have come across many online comments made by those who have no confidence in the pan-democracy camp. They believe there must be some candidates from the pan-democracy camp who will approve of the NSL in a bid to get qualified for the election, and urge the public to vote for them for collective interests. Some say that the incumbent legislators did not even dare to object to the National Anthem Law, not to mention saying no to the NSL. They suspect that the pan-democracy camp would sign an election agreement in which supporting the NSL is part of the deal, or the candidates would answer yes when asked by returning officers whether they side with the NSL, in order to take a seat in the LegCo.
Soon comes the primary election for the pro-democracy camp, and their real stance will be revealed in the debates.
The predicament Hong Kong is facing looks grim. The pan-democracy camp might not succumb to the NSL for being qualified for the election. But in case they do, I hope all the young people who care about the future of Hong Kong enroll in the election at their discretion, regardless of the primary election results, prescriptions or ethics. The more candidates running for seats of the LegCo, the voice are more widely spread. Imagine the picture when hundreds of candidates are disqualified. How can the US stand by?
If the Chinese Communist Party decides to step back for a while, and selectively disqualify a few youngsters, will too many candidates on the list dilute the votes and as a result only few are elected? Don’t worry. If that happens, some candidates from the pro-democracy camp will have to drop out in an attempt to secure enough votes for the seats. In election forums, the pro-establishment camp is bound to lose in the debates about the NSL. That being said, anyone who blatantly disapproves of the NSL is almost certainly to be disqualified.
Tam Yiuchung has mentioned that candidates must sign an agreement to show support for the Basic Law, and pledge loyalty to Hong Kong SAR. It is harmless to do so with these two terms, yet in no circumstances should they sign an agreement to show support for the NSL for the reason that so many clauses in the NSL violate the Basic Law. Their refusal should be made public so that the whole world knows how many LegCo candidates are disqualified after saying no to the NSL.
The NSL for Hong Kong has already been deplored by all civilized countries. The focus should be put on the revolt against the NSL in this LegCo Election. Other slogans like “independence of Hong Kong”, “self-determination”, “five demands”, and “liberate Hong Kong”, etc. should give way to avoid losing focus. The US and the western civilization only focus on the NSL for Hong Kong. The LegCo election is a decisive battle that is worth a fight.
Facebook, Ads, advertising, ads policies, ad policies, personal health. ... <看更多>
We show you the ad review and disapproval criteria and outline the ways to ensure your ads get the green light. Avoid getting ads disapproved on FB now. ... <看更多>
disapproved 在 Google Ads Smart campaigns | Why is my ad disapproved? 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>