溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 起初氣勢逼人中後段亂陣腳葉太突發晦氣 [打印本頁]

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2007-12-2 14:06 標題: 起初氣勢逼人中後段亂陣腳葉太突發晦氣

【本報訊】獲左派強勢撐場的葉劉淑儀，昨天儼如女皇出巡，所到之處都有大批助選人員為她吶喊助威，每隔幾步都會見到她的旗海飄揚，氣勢上壓倒人丁單薄的陳太陣營。不過，人多勢眾未令葉太受惠，一直氣勢比人強的葉太，昨午得悉陳太走勢凌厲後，突然也使出告急戰術，高調向外宣稱「選情告急」，並語帶晦氣指摘有傳媒機器偏幫陳太，令嚴峻選情大亂陣腳。　記者：許偉賢　梁美寶　林社炳

肩負硬撼陳太重責的葉劉淑儀，昨天穿上粉紅色運動服，與競選辦及匯賢智庫多名成員前往港島各地區拉票；她所到之處都得到左派陣營，如民建聯、商會及社團強勢助選，聲勢相當浩大。

人強馬壯旗海飄揚
灣仔區內，幾乎每個街口都見到葉太的助選團派發傳單及模擬選票；每隔兩個街口便有揚聲器重複播放民建聯核心成員為她拉票的錄音片段；中西區內，由山頂到西環，葉太的海報及旗幟隨處可見，多個拉票熱點都有近十名身穿民建聯黨徽背心的助選人員派發傳單，人海戰非常厲害。
以跑馬地成和道黃泥涌市政大廈票站外為例，便至少有近 30 名葉太助選人員高舉橫額及高喊口號，反觀泛民主派助選團人丁單薄，頂多只有 10 多人撐場，與葉太陣營相形見絀。
堅稱沒有鐵票庇護的葉太，昨天的選舉工程猶如「做騷」，不但拉票期間為昨天生日及結婚的支持者恭賀一番，也當眾表演企街食叉燒飯，並請來政商名人如瑞銀亞洲董事總經理陸東及藝人蘇施黃為其拉票，娛樂性極為豐富。
一直顯得信心十足的葉太，至昨午 3 時許得悉選情轉壞，開始轉打告急牌。她在上環高街拉票時便宣稱選情告急，指「有一位候選人幾日前已經不斷話告急，其實我選情都好緊湊、選情告急，希望我支持者去投票畀我。」

與民建聯巨頭密斟
傍晚 6 時許在工聯會巨頭陪同下到左派陣地北角拉票時，葉太也高叫「一票都不能少」。至入夜到南區海怡半島拉票時，由於被陳太陣營支持者不斷滋擾，選情未見優勢的葉太心情更見煩躁，除了表示會向選管會投訴外，更將一股怒氣推諉傳媒，指陳太獲得龐大傳媒機器助選，致令形勢不妙。其競選公關程介南及民建聯前主席曾鈺成在投票結束前 45 分鐘左右拉葉太密斟，似是商討選舉結果公佈後的應對。

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-2 14:14

自稱中華總商會致電　虛報更改選舉編號
毒招「支持陳太　請投 4 號」

【本報訊】左派陣營昨於立法會港島區補選投票日最後衝刺，繼續向陳方安生發出冷箭陰招，有自稱中華總商會職員的男子致電予選民，訛稱陳太已更改選舉編號，由 7 號改為 4 號，企圖誤導選民投票予 4 號的葉劉淑儀，選民直斥離譜。選舉事務處表示，不評論個別事件，但會按照既定程序跟進事件。　記者：謝明明　馮永堅　陳沛冰

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-2 15:41

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: zoids 時間: 2007-12-2 21:18

Oh everything not pro-Anson must be pro-PRC, what a great logic.

With this kind of logic, the Americans voted Bush (33% Approval rating according to Washington Post) and TWese voted Ah Bien (below 20% according to interview from Wall Street Jounral). Obviously they are regretting it now but cannot do anything to impeach him or correct their mistakes.

This is why Democracy won't work in Hong Kong anytime soon, with people have been misled to believe democracy is the only way to go and refused to search for alternatives or make compromises. More importantly, those supporters who turned a blind eye on Hong Kong's past achievements and their unsustainable lives without PRC's support (even before the reunification). Hong Kong desperately needs China, not the other way around, without PRC's constant help, Hong Kong would not be the same city as of right now.

作者: zoids 時間: 2007-12-2 21:25

原帖由 kipposhi 於 2007-12-2 14:14 發表
自稱中華總商會致電　虛報更改選舉編號
毒招「支持陳太　請投 4 號」

【本報訊】左派陣營昨於立法會港島區補選投票日最後衝刺，繼續向陳方安生發出冷 ...

I despise all those dirty tricks Yip's supporters had resort to do in recent days. They deserved to be the loser if they cannot fight cleanly, but who knows where are all these sms msgs are coming from?

Revealing Anson's hypocrisy and past scandals are fine (because it proves her credibility as a politician) but spreading lies to misled voters is just plain wrong.

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-2 23:21

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: zoids 時間: 2007-12-3 00:52

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-2 23:21 發表
Zoids, as far as the by-election is concerned, Apple Daily is pro-Anson. Ming Pao pretends to remain netural when in fact many of their articles and columns side with Yip Lau. And then you have Sing T ...

If you try to state your own opinion as fact, please provide proofs.  Newspaper might not be perfectly neutral (who can define neutral to start with) because readers themselves usually read it with biased mindset already.  That's why your point there is not valid at all.  I just see you throwing out accusations without any proof to back it up.

I used the US and TW for examples because US is considered the land of freedom, democracy, human rights, world police, etc.  That's why it's normal to bring US up for example.  Martin Lee didn't go to other country when he wanted foreign power to intervene China's internal policy.  I used TW because TW is the closest democratic model around China, with very similar cultural values too.

HK is not ready for democracy due to internal and external factors, for one of the internal factors, as you agreed, "a large number of HK people are too short-sighted and have no political ideals at all".  For one of the external factors, it is because HK must relies on PRC to have a sustainable economy and living style, therefore unless the PRC finally decides to let HK have democracy, HK is not ready to have democracy.

However, I think most people are just being misled to only concentrate their focus on the democracy issue to create political value for the opposing parties.  Not having universal suffrage does not mean HK ppl do not have any freedom.  At the end of the day, it's the freedom that really matters.  HK has been ranked the 58th country on 2007 Pree Freedom list by Reporters without Borders, just 2 countries behind USA.  Considered most other countries above HK in the list are western developed countries, and PRC itself is ranked pretty much dead last (163 of 168), HK citizens has pretty much any kind of freedoms as the west except universal suffrage.  It is not hard to see universal suffrage is not permitted simply because it is closely linked with sovereignty issue, and we all know PRC will not bulge an inch on this matter.  HK as of now is already enjoying highest level of autonomy in PRC (Ranked 1st in the eocnomic freedom list by The Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal), further asking universal suffrage is simply too much for the current PRC right now.  HK citizens should understand that and be reasonable, instead of chasing the perfect ideal political system they were misled to believe.  The history has shown HK successfully defended their freedom in 2003 by protesting.  HK citizens should know there is limit to everything and should not ask for more unreasonably.  I personally think status quo is the best option right now.

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-3 03:09

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: CWong 時間: 2007-12-3 04:15

原帖由 Traum 於 2/12/2007 15:41 發表

I really like how Yip Lau is twisting the facts here. In the HK media, there is one newspaper that is pro-Anson, and practically everyone else is pro-SAR administration / central government. In the a ...

我倒喜欢叶刘的真性情多过口蜜腹剑的四万那副政客咀臉！

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-3 05:27

不折不扣的「隱形左派」
【本報訊】徐家傑表面上與傳統左派政黨保持距離，但實際上他可算是個不折不扣的「隱形左派」，曾被指與國安扯上關係。徐家傑是中國和平統一促進會香港地區的董事局副主席，該會總部設在北京，會長正是全國政協主席賈慶林！
回歸前，徐家傑在廉署工作，官至執行處副處長，是當時廉署內最高級的華人官員，被視為「明日之星」。他在 93 年 11 月突然被廉署終止聘用，事件引起極大震撼，當時的立法局就炒徐事件展開聆訊，爆出他與有背景人士過從甚密。聆訊的最後結論是有關解僱決定合理。

被炒後常批評廉署
徐家傑被解僱後，常高調批評廉署的查案手法。廉署在 98 年曾解僱四名調查員，理由是他們在 97 年 12 月曾跟徐家傑晚膳，懷疑席間向在場的內地國安人員洩露廉署機密。他同時熱愛泰拳，是香港拳擊總會永遠榮譽主席、坤青武泰拳術社總監。

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-3 05:32

選民柴台罵葉太走狗

為選舉減少嘴藐藐、克制挑釁言論，卻抹不掉 23 條立法造成的負面形象。葉劉淑儀昨日在多區拉票時，被不少選民當面數落，有餐廳老闆對她說「選到你係香港不幸！」有人拒接葉太的宣傳單張、拒與她握手，難得葉太面對選民柴台，雖然面懵懵，卻仍按脾氣。
早上葉太走入灣仔的多多餐廳派傳單，冷不防被老闆當面斥責，「你係共產黨走狗，選到你係香港不幸！」餐廳夥計也埋怨她阻做生意，不留情面的批評令葉太有點錯愕，她收起笑容、忍不住說，「冇咁嚴重？」

「我一定唔會投你票」
然而，選民的冷言冷語接踵而來。她走到旁邊的街市拉票，一間魚檔老闆拒接傳單，並晦氣地說，「你贏硬啦！」中午葉太來到筲箕灣一個商場，一檔賣牛肉的檔主主動趨前向她大聲說，「良心唔係人人有，我一定唔會投你票，我冇忘記 23 條呀！」
抖擻精神，葉太又來到筲箕灣的悅興酒家與茶客握手。「唔好意思，我隻手太污糟，唔方便同你握手！」一位男茶客笑說。又有男茶客在成群助選團簇擁下握過葉太友誼之手，但記者隨後聽到他向在座友人說，「哎呀，握錯！」不過，練得一身忍功的葉太，繼續昂然找尋支持者。

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-3 09:02

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-3 09:07

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: jake123 時間: 2007-12-5 14:54

sorry for my ignorance, but wt's so important about this election? wts the position anyway? the two candidates are both bad?

作者: yyj 時間: 2007-12-5 16:13

I have the same feeling, both candidates are just as bad, it's choosing between a giant douche or turd sandwich

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-5 16:47

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: Guy 時間: 2007-12-5 17:02

「哎呀，握錯！」

作者: zoids 時間: 2007-12-5 17:28

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-3 03:09 發表
王岸然 keeps slamming Anson every single day:
http://wongonyin.mysinablog.com/

李慧玲 slammed Anson for the 100% mortgage thing for the whole week:
http://pshweb01.881903.com/framework/pccs.gateway?u ...

I don't think 王岸然 is slamming Anson without reason.  The whole point of the "mortgage door" incident is exactly what he stated, "法律，是有客觀標準的，不會為個人主觀意志所轉移。一眾泛民小政客包括曾經被誤會為會為法律公義而戰的大狀議員，一個二個為政治利益而變臉，一句抹黑就將解釋的責任推得一乾二淨。法律對這些人物而言，只是律人嚴而律己寬的政治工具，也不應太過意外。"  As far as I know, Anson still haven't provide enough proof on the issue to clean herself up.  Remember I brought up the point that her background is not as clean as the media/politicians portrayed before?  No matter what reason is it, a rule is a rule and everyone should be treated equally.  When the gov't enforce the 70% mortgage rule back in the 90s, the bank you have only gave her 70% maximum.  Remember why we had the 70% mortgage rule at that time?  It is to discourage overheating property investment.  Either way, Anson was corrupted with greed.  She used her high position in the gov't to get around the rule for her SELF INTEREST.  There is no difference as Leung Gum Chong bought his new Lexus given that he knows the tax will be increased.  You and the self called "pro-democracy" ppl distracted the issue by claiming it is throwing mud.  No, this is not throwing mud.  This is called holding Anson credible to what she have done.  On the other hand, what ppl found fault with Reginia Yip was just because she was helping gov't to promote an unpopular law.  Let me say this again, it WAS her RESPONSIBILITY to do that AS A CIVIL SERVANT IN HER THAT PARTICULAR POSITION.  All these should not harm Reginia's credibility as a politician.

It is clearly stated that "The term of office of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be five years" in the Article 46 of the Basic Law.  Traum, again you need to learn more about politics before you are throwing out accusations.  Just like many presidents in other countries, Chief Executive can only be in the office for a limited time.  Therefore the voters still can kick Chief Executive out if they want.  You really need to stop this dirt smearing.

No, even they practiced democracy, it won't make the citizen smarter.  If your point was valid, Chen Shui Bian won't be elected again after the first 4 years of bad governance, so is GW Bush.  Did you even remember all those crazy scandal involved in those elections?  Democracy is just an illusion to "majority rules", it is not about what's right or wrong.  It is about who can deceive the most people.  It is just a bunch of liars doing their lip service about a year before the election.

It's true that citizens were pushed to disparity in 2003, but you also need to understand they cannot blame everything to the HKSAR gov't.  HKSAR didn't spread SARS, didn't brought Avian Flu to themsevles, everyone was pissed due to so many unfortunate incidents happened in such a short time and the economy plummeted as normal.  The HKSAR gov't was not wise to promote such unpopular law at that moment, and they suffered the consequence already.  Tung and Reginia resigned.  PRC did not dare to bring it up again in near future.

Finally, you were dead wrong to associate democracy with freedom.  Again, I have stated this issue before, it all boils down to what kind of freedom you want.  Do you agree everyone should have gun ownership freedom?  When people say speech/religion freedom, should people allowed to spread racist messages or cult messages?  Democracy is just one kind of freedom, stop exergeratting it to involve everything.  People who truly understand freedom and democracy will not misled by your false claims.

I am so disappointed at your false accusation again.  I just cannot stand no one here dare to counter your fallacy point by point, I would not even want to spend so much time pointing out where you were wrong.  I was just hoping other LYK can see the other side of the argument instead of being brainwashed by your constantly baseless Hong Kong gov't bashing.

作者: zoids 時間: 2007-12-5 17:35

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-5 16:47 發表

While that is a perfectly acceptable opinion, the thing to remember is -- a lot of times, you must choose between the bad and the worse. Even if you think Anson is a poorly qualified candidate (I do ...

Don't put all the blame to Reginia Yip just because she was involved in the by-election and future election. 2003 protest was caused by a combination of factors, not just Reginia Yip's promotion of Article 23 alone. You should be shamed for your own closed-minded hatred toward a diligent civil servant and your selective memories. The more you post, the more it proves HK citizens do not have the open-mindset to choose a right candidate in a democracy system.

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-5 22:55

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-6 02:39

原帖由 zoids 於 2007-12-5 17:28 發表
No, even they practiced democracy, it won't make the citizen smarter. If your point was valid, Chen Shui Bian won't be elected again after the first 4 years of bad governance, so is GW Bush. Did you even remember all those crazy scandal involved in those elections? Democracy is just an illusion to "majority rules", it is not about what's right or wrong. It is about who can deceive the most people. It is just a bunch of liars doing their lip service about a year before the election.

It's true that citizens were pushed to disparity in 2003, but you also need to understand they cannot blame everything to the HKSAR gov't. HKSAR didn't spread SARS, didn't brought Avian Flu to themsevles, everyone was pissed due to so many unfortunate incidents happened in such a short time and the economy plummeted as normal. The HKSAR gov't was not wise to promote such unpopular law at that moment, and they suffered the consequence already. Tung and Reginia resigned. PRC did not dare to bring it up again in near future.

For the case of GW Bush, I don't think it is nothing wrong for he got elected.  You don't like him.  This doesn't mean US people don't like him.  I don't trust those biasd polls.

One of the reasons for Tung forced to resign probably was Jiang Zemin's resignation from Chairman of the Central Military Commission.  Otherwise, Tung might be able to finish 10 years term.

Regina resigned not because of 500K protest on July 1st.  Before July 1st, even 1470's 張無忌 said that Regina's friends knew that Regina planned to go to US with her daughter already.  Don't be too naive that Chinese Communist Party would really care what HK citizens' needs.

作者: peter236 時間: 2007-12-6 03:19

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-5 16:47 發表

While that is a perfectly acceptable opinion, the thing to remember is -- a lot of times, you must choose between the bad and the worse. Even if you think Anson is a poorly qualified candidate (I do ...

You know, Anson Chan is a respectful person, and therefore she has to come clean about her shady business dealings. Every buyer, no matter how rich, has to follow the mortgage rules set by the HK Monetary Authority. In particular, HK's real estate prices became a bubble during her tenure pre-1997. A person with shady pasts is untrustworthy and should be removed from office.

You asked what does Anson's 100% mortgage incident amount to? It amounts to preferential treatment and even violation of laws. Don't you understand, you smartie?

As for Yip Lau, she has not committed any crimes. She was just carrying out government policies. At least, she is consistent with her past position, instead of 除了忽然民主，更是忽然民生.

The Article 23 is just securities laws. Even the US and other western countries have these laws to protect them from terrorists attacks. HK people who protested were misled by those anti-Hong Kong smarties. So why shouldn't HK have these laws?

作者: zoids 時間: 2007-12-6 04:12

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-5 22:55 發表
Zoids, thank you for replying. Unfortunately, I do not agree with any of your points at all.

Well, lemme ask you this -- between Anson's 100% mortgage thing and Yip Lau's Article 23 bad record, which ...

Certainly Anson's 100% mortgage hurt her credibility more than Regina Yip trying to fulfill what her responsibility as Secretary of Security.  You can find fault on her unwise approach, but you cannot fault her on her credibility.  You are obviously blinded by your strong self-claimed "democracy" position to think everyone not agreeing you are anti-democracy.

2nd, that's what exactly I was talking about on the TW issue.  Chen Shui Bian used dirty tricks to scare ppl like you who cannot think critically to vote for him.  Case closed.  You are acting exactly like one of those pan-green supporters.

About the SARS, do you know what you were talking about?  Blaming officials for wide spread?  Do you know it is PRC that hid the fact about the outbreak, so HK officials and doctors are blindsided. HK and Singapore are the first 2 countries to announce compulsory quarantine and stopped school?  Do you have some common sense at all?  SARS is new so no one would have expected it to spread quickly and fatal, how many case the doctors need before they realize it's a dangerous disease?  I think gov't did a good job to quarantine ppl as soon as they realize the danger of it.

In theory, bird flu should not infect human being easily, it just happened that H5N1 is the first virus to adapt to human body.  The speech of Margaret Chan was made before more cases turned up, she was just saying what the past scientific report suggested.  People in the know did not fault her for that, they even credited her for killing all the chickens immediately although many ppl opposed.

Finally, PRC surely would want a tighter political grip, but does that mean Regina Yip is working for PRC?  No, read her platform again, it is very similar to Anson Chan's.  Both are eventually aiming for universal suffrage.  It seems that it is YOU who need to get your fact straight, lyk.

作者: zoids 時間: 2007-12-6 04:54

原帖由 kipposhi 於 2007-12-6 02:39 發表

For the case of GW Bush, I don't think it is nothing wrong for he got elected. You don't like him. This doesn't mean US people don't like him. I don't trust those biasd polls.

One of the reasons ...

I don't like him because I know he is a lying piece of shit from the begining, and thank you for supporting my point.  In a democratic system, what one needs to win is just to deceive the most people compare to one's opponents.

For Tung's resignation, as little as we know about the truth, if you strongly believe it is due to Jiang's resignation, why didn't PRC fire Tung to earn more political points instead of letting him resign?  Especially if they do not trust Donald Tsang, why let the good old loyal guy quit?  If PRC really doesn't care about HK citizens, why let Donald Tsang be Chief Executive?  They can just hold another election similar to the 1996 one with all the candidates are pro-PRC.

OK, I admit I got it mixed up because Reginia Yip's resignation is very close to the 2003 protest so I take that back.  She resigned on June 25th, citing personal reason.  However, can you see it as some work done to cool down the anti-government atmosphere at least?  Some kind of compromises that rarely seen in PRC?  I think all these can be interpreted either way depends on what you want to believe.

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-6 10:01

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-6 10:06

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-6 10:41

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-6 15:28

原帖由 zoids 於 2007-12-6 04:54 發表

I don't like him because I know he is a lying piece of **** from the begining, and thank you for supporting my point. In a democratic system, what one needs to win is just to deceive the most peopl ...

Sorry, you got something wrong.  I am not for your point that "in a democratic system, what one needs to win is just to deceive the most people compare to one's opponents."

If central government fired Tung, then this would mean they picked the wrong person for HKSARS CEO even I believe Tung really got fired.  Letting Tung "resign" means that grandfather did not pick the wrong person.  Tung got fired probably because of politics inside communist party. Don't forget that the central government probably has never admitted that they did anything (including Cultural Revolution, Tienanmen massacre) wrong.  What grandfather did may be to stabilize their power and to "have face".  They picked Donald because none of the dogs can do a good job for reviving the economy.

Regina planned to go to US almost a year ago before the protest in 2003.  She would resign even she did not promote Article 23.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-6 15:33

原帖由 peter236 於 2007-12-6 03:19 發表

You know, Anson Chan is a respectful person, and therefore she has to come clean about her shady business dealings. Every buyer, no matter how rich, has to follow the mortgage rules set by the HK Mo ...

US and other western countries indeed have Article 23-like law, but they have democracy which HK doesn't have.

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-6 21:25

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-7 00:32

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-6 21:25 發表

The thing is, at least on paper, democratic countries has a written set of policies for people to appeal such investigations. Granted, there would be a lot of red tape involved, but at least in a dem ...

China doesn't need this kind of law since it is "rule by law" instead of "rule of law"

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-7 00:46

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: peter236 時間: 2007-12-7 00:59

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-6 10:01 發表

Hello? Do you know anything about conducting business at all? Why do frequent customers receive better service? Businesses are ALL about preferential treatment, and the bank is a business. Preferred customers are preferred customers becuase the business can make money off them. They know Anson and her family is fully capable for supporting that mortgage, so the bank did what they could within the law to lend as much money to Anson as possible. Had any laws been broken, do you really think the finance commission, the business / commerce investigation team, and the police would have left it alone during this past 12, 13 years?

In the end, it was a business decision. I see nothing wrong with it.

I agree Yip Lau was "just carrying out her duties", but that is precisely the problem. As a high ranking official of HK, do you just do whatever task Grandfather has given you? Or do you exercise your own judgement and consider whether the policy is best for HK, or whether it's best for Grandfather? As I have said numerous times before, we need people working in the interest of HK. We do not need puppets to carry out Grandfather's orders.

I am not even gonna bother arguing with you over Article 23. If Article 23 wasn't problematic, why did you think 500,000 people took things to the street back in 2003? Why did you think the CP 4-Big-Lawyers worked tirelessly to prevent the bill from passing? Are you even aware of the implications of how far Article 23 can extend?

You don't even have a clue of what you are talking about. Your pro-British attitude is clouding your judgement. If the HK Monetary Authority sets the rule of 70% mortgage, then the most preferential customers, no matter how rich, will get 70% at most. All the others will get even less than that. What people are suspecting now is that Anson Chan got preferential treatment because she was a high ranking officer.

Also, there are discrepancies between her clarifications back in 1995 and those she made more recently. This shows she has something to hide from the public. When is she going to come clean about her shady business dealings? HK does not need a dishonest official.

Her character is also in doubt, since she is 除了忽然民主，更是忽然民生. The first day on the job after the election, she said some crap like "no democracy for HK, no prosperity for HK". As we all know there was no democracy under the British masters, and yet there was prosperity. As she was a high ranking officer under the British masters, she should have exercised her judgement and decided what was good for HK people. But she was such an obedient puppet to the British that she didn't have the courage to ask for democracy from the British.

As for Yip Lau, at least she is consistent with her past position. In order to protect HK from terrorist attacks, HK needs Article 23. Even the US and other western countries have these laws to protect them from terrorists attacks. But HK people didn't realize this. A lot of HK people who protested were misled by those pro-British puppets. Unless you do not want HK to have the ability of protecting itself from terrorists, why wouldn't you support it? Even the Americans are giving up some privacy for protection.

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2007-12-7 15:02

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-7 00:46 發表

Did you mean to say that China is 人治 instead of 法治?

-Lik

法家的法執(rule by law) in 秦朝 is, indeed, 人治

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-7 18:23

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: 老友四號 時間: 2007-12-7 22:29

昨日她事奉英夷，一品當朝，位極人臣，回鄉祭祖，光耀門楣！可曾片言隻字，談民主、道民生？

今日她放下身段，落區求票，為民所選，議事堂上，得一席位！忽然一臉正氣，講民主、論民生！

人生無既定；變幻是永恆。信乎。

作者: Traum 時間: 2007-12-8 03:31

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: spoonek4 時間: 2007-12-9 03:45

唔知點解，我兩個都唔會投..........

作者: 老友四號 時間: 2007-12-12 07:07

原帖由 Traum 於 2007-12-8 03:31 發表
4 Gor,

One way to look at this is, at the time of the British rule, the overall atmosphere and awareness for a need to democracy was not as prevalent. Certainly there was our share of tireless fighte ...

明白你所言，但老夫絕不相信一個昨天是前殖民地高級技術官僚的人(即使在回歸初期尚未

「忍夠」辭職之前，仍是高級技術官僚)，今天會忽然摇身一變而成為一個全心全意內外如一

的民主鬥士！

所以老夫認為香港的民主素求者可以說是"急病亂投醫"，未免天真了一點。

[ 本帖最後由老友四號於 2007-12-12 07:09 編輯 ]

作者: peter236 時間: 2008-1-28 03:30

除了忽然民主，更是忽然民生. We are not getting any contribution from a British puppet at all.

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)