溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: Why does democracy only work in rich western countries? [打印本頁]

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-14 22:51 標題: Why does democracy only work in rich western countries?

This question just flashed through my mind when I read the different opinions of people on LYK - why does democracy seem to be only effective in rich western countries but not other places around the world?

Would someone share his/her thoughts and tell me the reason why?

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2011-4-15 01:57

it is not about rich or not.

there are many factors. history, culture, education, etc all lead to a successful democracy system.

of course, other social system is suitable at certain situation.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-15 02:10

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-15 02:29 編輯

it is not about rich or not.

there are many factors. history, culture, education, etc all lead t ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-15 01:57

The reality is the democracy we are praising now and here on LYK is only effective in rich western countries but not other countries around the world.

The things in common are:

1) They are all RICH countries. Can anyone find any one of them is not rich?

2) They are all WESTERN countries. Can anyone find a country is not western but effectively implemented the western democracy?

There must be reasons for it. Other people can elaborate and add your thoughts.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-15 07:35

Just got back and see quite a bunch of new stuffs...

Anyway, I think the topic of this post is somehow misleading, I agree with rainbow it's not all about rich of not...

If you are referring to "rich", it should be capitalism versus other systems...

作者: Catpiano 時間: 2011-4-15 07:51

Which western country is rich now ar?? Only Eastern countries are rich ... lol

作者: ACC-HE 時間: 2011-4-15 09:36

maybe depends if the people of that country are well educated or not?

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-15 09:50

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-4-15 09:53 編輯

回復 6# ACC-HE

Not only that...

In economic terms, democracy provides the most efficient platform to lower the transcation cost as compared with other systems. It's related to the efficiency and the fairness for wealth allocation within the society, and the effectiveness very well depends on how ease people can abuse the rights and how fast corrections can be made upon mistakes.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-15 10:07

I agree with rainbow it's not all about rich of not......
lo_pak 發表於 2011-4-15 07:35

Yes, it certainly not all about rich or not. For example, the middle east oil countries are certainly rich and they did not adopt western democracy system.

I am talking about the phenomena (相象) that we actually see.

I am expecting Lik, Somewhereintime and M boy to share their thoughts as well.

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-4-15 12:16

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-4-15 12:18 編輯

It is all about rapid economic growth is associated with a period of little democracy.
Examples: UK, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan

In UK, the system of universal suffrage did not exist in the United Kingdom until 1928. However, UK grew rapidly during the industrialization revolution.

Democracy is not good for developing countries. Examples: India, Mexico, Phillippines which are corrupted

And developed education and less corruption requires a strong economy to support.
That means economic development has priority now.

作者: Prelude 時間: 2011-4-15 13:27

Good integrity among the citizens is required to lower the corruption. It is possible to build up such good integrity even the country is poor if the government was good and the people weren't so selfish at the beginning.

Education requires good economic support, which can't be avoided.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-15 15:24

Why has the "democratic gang" not showed their faces to provide their 高談闊論 about the democracy?

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-15 15:36

回復 11# rockypath

Yo man, it's Friday...

GO CANUCKS GO....Shoot down the Hawks!!

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-15 15:53

回復 rockypath

Yo man, it's Friday...

GO CANUCKS GO....Shoot down the Hawks!!
lo_pak 發表於 2011-4-15 15:36

Oh. yeah... Go Canucks go!!! Sure win!!!

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-16 15:30

I am just wondering why Lik, Somewherintime and the M-boy do not have the gut to show up and share their thought regarding this question I asked.

I hope they will have the gut to stick their heads out and explain this phenomena to us.

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2011-4-16 17:01

回復 3# rockypath

Also, you may have reserved the cause-and-result relationship.

Western countries came up with democracy. also, if you dig into history, the idea of democracy already seeded since ancient Greek.

Anyway, Western countries had democracy, and the culture for that. They went through a series of revolution and war both in Europe and N.America until the system was established. One thing "cool" about democracy system is that it has the self-correct mechanism and it is still evolving right now. Anyway, because of many factors, western countries got rich and I believe part of it is because of democracy system that brings equal (or relatively equal) opportunities to people and thus respect varies rights of different people, thus the counties get wealthier and wealthier.

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2011-4-16 17:05

回復 14# rockypath

I dunno about them, I was in LYK so long. and I used to fight with people against democracy system.

but now I learn that 1) This is their choice. 2) no matter what I say, Peter is still Peter. fy is still fy, u r still u. what I said is totally not important, it is your personal experience that will affect you. 3) If I want to change someone mind, instead of writing 10000 words post to convince him. There are other ways to change the crowd.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-16 17:18

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-16 17:30 編輯

回復 rockypath

Also, you may have reserved the cause-and-result relationship.

Western countries ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-16 17:01

You are the first person on LYK that I talked to is able to actually acknowledge the seed of the modern democracy dated back ancient Greek.

Establish democracy in China is the wish of most (if not all) of Chinese. That is certainly my wish as well.

Western countries got rich for many factors (天時、地利、人合) and their expansions around the globe. But I believe the process of getting rich have greater contributions to the establishment of western democracy instead of the other way around - the democracy established the wealth of western countries.

I have no intension to change their minds. As you said, they are who they are. I just want to show the different side of an issue or a story. People on LYKs will be able to have a rounded view of an issue and form their own opinions.

I am expecting Lik, Somewhereintime and the M-boy to provide their inputs to show they actually know what they have been talking about when they talked about the democracy and the establishment of democracy in China instead of bashing and attacking other LYKs who hold a different opinion from theirs.

作者: fy789 時間: 2011-4-16 20:54

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-4-16 21:14

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-4-16 21:17 編輯

回復  rockypath

lso, you may have reserved the cause-and-result relationship.

Western countries came up with democracy.  also, if you dig into history, the idea of democracy already seeded since ancient Greek.

Anyway, Western countries had democracy, and the culture for that.  They went through a series of revolution and war both in Europe and N.America until the system was established.  One thing "cool" about democracy system is that it has the self-correct mechanism and it is still evolving right now. Anyway, because of many factors, western countries got rich and I believe part of it is because of democracy system that brings equal (or relatively equal) opportunities to people and thus respect varies rights of different people, thus the counties get wealthier and wealthier.

rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-16 17:01

If you look at Greece today, what is happening to their society? Their political system allows their people to ask for the best welfare system in the world, something that they cannot afford anymore. Now their government wants to cut back on their spending, but the people still protest.
Their country is on the brink of financial bankruptcy. Is democracy going to solve it? Does the change of a political party in power going to change it?

I am not saying democracy is bad. Just look at the US, they are basically a 2-party rule society.
For China, what they need now is a stable society for rapid economic growth.
Democracy can come later. e.g Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and the UK. They all had a period of rapid economic growth before any form of democracy was introduced.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-16 21:26

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-4-16 21:28 編輯

回復 19# peter236

With most civilians which are still unenlightened, your point is absolutely right, democracy can be a poise...

Dictatorship has the highest efficiency as always in history, it's just a matter of fact how good the leader is...

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-16 21:56

The development of democracy is like uprising a kid...
In the childhood, giving too much freedom to the kid is overkilling, you are not helping the kid to grow, but to ruin his future because s/he is still unable to judge... That's why, there should be some guidances from the elderly...
But, as the kid grows and becomes more enlightened, more freedom should be released. Too much parenthood, at this time, will become in-appropriate...

Which countires do people think they are still kids, kidults, and adults?

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-17 01:39

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-17 01:52 編輯

Dictatorship has the highest efficiency as always in history, it's just a matter of fact how good the leader is...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-4-16 21:26

This is the kind of discussion I have been looking forward to - being able to examine an issue from different perspectives and allow different voices to be heard.

I know an American who was a CEO of the China company of a Fortune 500 company personally. He has been working and living in China since late 80's. Therefore, he has eye witnessed the changes and developments of China.

What you said here just reminds me a conversation between him and I a few years back when we discussed about the leadership change of China and US. He believes one of the reasons that China has been successful in its economic reform and achieved the economic miracle is the efficiency of its current political system. (of course, he also acknowledged the risks and impacts of having a "bad leader". That is one of topics during our conversation)

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-17 01:43

The development of democracy is like uprising a kid...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-4-16 21:56

You just bang on the point I ultimately want to bring out and hope people can understand.

作者: sheep 時間: 2011-4-17 07:54

The End

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-17 08:01

The End
sheep 發表於 2011-4-17 07:54

If you want to have meaningful discussion and express your own opinions, then you are welcome. If you just want to 搗亂, then please get lost and go somewhere else.

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2011-4-17 08:51

專制可以在某個時段內集中國力去達成一些發展. 代價就係其他唔關發展既人同行業, 甚或土地之類, 而且唔會有任何折衝或幫助, 因為所有都被"國家"這面旗下掩蓋. 同埋, 專制下, 個人利益壦利係嚴重無保障. 而專制下, 個社會走得好定壞, 就只能睇上高果位. 係好大家咪好, 係pk大家咪pk

Peter: 就算要你收口,都只怪我地唔夠理性. 而你,一面享受民主自由, 一面打到,一面無視公義. 所以我地同你係唔同問題.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-17 09:03

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-4-17 09:11 編輯

回復 26# rainbow-davie

Some people are bad in expression, Peter is certainly one of a very good example in the forum...

But, he does have some points "occasionally"...

作者: fy789 時間: 2011-4-17 09:49

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-17 09:56

回復 28# fy789

Good article, compact and clear...

I wish I can see some posts from P with 1/10th of this quality...

P.S. - Just a wish...

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2011-4-17 11:11

回復 28# fy789

所謂國力是片面, 但最重要係人. 人係國家之本, 國家係國際幾威,有幾多儲備,有幾多高鐵又點?
如果國民生活/權益得唔到保障, 可以突然人間蒸發, 幾十年財產可以一句話就唔見晒, 事事要逆來順受, 無得出聲, 要睇阿頭面色做人, 你話你會唔會生活得開心?

作者: fy789 時間: 2011-4-17 12:11

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: daimo 時間: 2011-4-17 13:14

本帖最後由 daimo 於 2011-4-17 13:20 編輯

回復 rockypath

Western countries came up with democracy. also, if you dig into history, the idea of democracy already seeded since ancient Greek.

rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-16 17:01

well, i think we should consider the fact that back in the Greeks/Romans days, only the citizens could vote.

But there were more slaves than citizens ...

And there were many vassal states ...

what does it tell us?

作者: Prelude 時間: 2011-4-17 13:18

I think dictatorship can only grow to certain size and stuck though.
Dictatorship is very risky, but if the top is doing so bad, a revolution will start anyways.

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-4-17 13:27

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-4-17 13:29 編輯

I think dictatorship can only grow to certain size and stuck though.
Dictatorship is very risky, but ...
Prelude 發表於 2011-4-17 13:18

A dictatorship is where the leader tries to pass the position to his sons or daughters. e.g North Korea, many African and middle east countries.

So mainland China is not a dictatorship. The Chinese leaders are just bureaucrats that implement the policies. China is more like Singapore or Japan where there is 1-party rule or near 1-party rule.

The important thing is how to change China, in the future, into a 2-party system(parties that are big enough to get elected) like the US, Canada or UK. Too many political party is bad for any country especially developing countries.

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2011-4-17 15:05

回復 34# peter236

咁你可唔可以保證中共一定會次次select到好既或正常既領導人呀? 如果一個唔好彩又一個毛頭出見, 你話我知, without民主制度, 國民點去踢走佢?

作者: Prelude 時間: 2011-4-17 16:17

回復 peter236

咁你可唔可以保證中共一定會次次select到好既或正常既領導人呀? 如果一個唔好彩又一 ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-17 15:05

If the citizens suffer too much, there will be a revolution and many people will die.
That's part of the deal.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-17 17:22

咁你可唔可以保證中共一定會次次select到好既或正常既領導人呀? 如果一個唔好彩又一個毛頭出見, 你話我知, without民主制度, 國民點去踢走佢?
rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-17 15:05

雖然我極其討厭中共，但今時今日，我都唔會太擔心中共最高領導人會爆多件毛賊咁嘅屠夫出來。其實自老鄧之後，中共領導人嘅個人獨自話事能力一屆不如一屆；江萬歲無能力可以好始老鄧咁話要天安門開鎗就開開鎗，而糊撚塗就更加連江萬歲可以勉強壓住軍委同黨內部各樣嘅不同意見。（當然，呢個唔淨係因為領導人個人能力有關...）

今時今日嘅共產黨，其實基本上係由中央政治局常委嘅一班（9個）人共同領導。糊撚塗理論上係大啲，但重要嘅決定、主要方向等等其實都要一班人大家四四六六傾掂佢。由其是係當政策會牽涉到黨內部唔同派別嘅利益果陣，根本其實就係同黑社會一班大佬響龍頭面前拆掂數一樣。而要入到中央政治局常委呢個核心，除咗要根正苗紅之外，每個常委亦都真係千錘百鍊、萬中選一，一層一層咁響黨內提昇上來。所以能力上，其實每個中央政治局常委都絕對係有嘅。

但最大嘅問題係，由於領導人始終都係由黨內自己拆掂數，而唔係人民選出來，所以要上位果啲人其實真由頭到尾都只需要取悅黨內嘅老細同元老，而並非要對人民負責。而因為唔需要對人民負責，所以先至會有咁多平民百姓被剝削。

呢個先至係無民主最大嘅問題。

-力

作者: Prelude 時間: 2011-4-17 18:33

雖然我極其討厭中共，但今時今日，我都唔會太擔心中共最高領導人會爆多件毛賊咁嘅屠夫出來。其實自老鄧之 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-17 17:22

First time I see your post not asking ppl to pk. Good improvement.
And your post makes more sense too.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-17 19:46

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-17 19:52 編輯

回復 peter236

咁你可唔可以保證中共一定會次次select到好既或正常既領導人呀? 如果一個唔好彩又一 ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-17 15:05

No, there is no guarantee to that. Same as the western democracy system, no one can guarantee a president elected will be a capable and suitable one.

Under current political system in China, “check-and-balance” mechanism is mainly done within the party itself – different power groups within the party and they, in a way, act as the opposition parties.

I am not sure whether people on LYK know that the political structure of China includes other political parties (民主黨派) as well for its political stability. Within its structure, there is an implicit rule that it must includes certain numbers or percentages of those 民主黨派人士 and actually hold administrative positions from bottom to the top (黨中央和人大). This actually provides the fostering ground for the forming of actual opposition party in China.

I know a mainland Chinese personally and he purposely joined one of the eight 民主黨派 sine he believed it will help him advance faster and higher within the political structure. He has been actually doing pretty well.

If China one day will actually have an opposition party, I believe it will be one of the eight 民主黨派 which is already part of the political structure and possibly have the ability and human resources to run the country when it needs to take over the administrative power. But not the 法輪功 or 社民連!

It has been a GREAT discussion! People can discuss peacefully and objectively, and most importantly – allowing different voices to be heard.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-17 20:00

No, there is no guarantee to that. Same as the western democracy system, no one can guarantee a pr ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-18 11:46

乜大陸有民主黨派架咩? 果d 民主黨派講既野, 共產黨會唔會當佢地發up 風?
我真係唔知大陸會有民主黨派架... 係唔係好似d 空殼公司咁得個殼?

-- 乜都唔係咁知既 MJJ

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-17 20:21

乜大陸有民主黨派架咩? 果d 民主黨派講既野, 共產黨會唔會當佢地發up 風?
我真係唔知大陸會有民主黨派架.. ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-4-17 20:00

It is under the umbrella - 在中國共產黨的領導下.

They are not influential neither politically significant at current stage, but they do exit.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-17 21:18

First time I see your post not asking ppl to pk. Good improvement.
And your post makes more sens ...
Prelude 發表於 2011-4-17 18:33

仆街啦你～我不溜都係有果句講果句。你估我好似阿爺啲擦鞋狗咁，收咗阿爺錢就不停咁舔佢屎眼？

It is under the umbrella - 在中國共產黨的領導下.

They are not influential neither politically significant at current stage, but they do exit.
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-17 20:21

你自己都識得講：在中國共產黨領導下嘅「民主派」。連少少牙力都無，夠薑講兩多句就會俾上面叫收聲，再唔係極其量都只係敢對（大興）地方法院叫囂，而唔敢直指中央不是。咁樣叫做民主派？

中共裡面只有權鬥，而太子黨、團派同上海幫三足鼎立嘅局面就最廣為人知。當然中共裡唔只呢三個流派，但呢三幫人先至係互相制衡嘅力量，而當中並同民眾無關。黨內內鬥只會顧及各方勢力所能得到嘅利益，又幾時會將人民同佢地嘅利益放入考慮之列？又幾時需要對人民負責？除非係民怨沸騰之時，如果唔係你想佢對人民負責都幾難。

如果中共真係好似你條廢柴所講咁好、咁有希望，咁點解你條撚樣同咁多權貴二、三代又要逃出國外？個個揸住本外國戶照響手？點解你唔欄返去為祖國捐軀？分分鐘五星旗都有得你蓋㗎喎？

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-17 22:07

仆街啦你～我不溜都係有果句講果句。你估我好似阿爺啲擦鞋狗咁，收咗阿爺錢就不停咁舔佢屎眼？

你自己都 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-17 21:18

狗就是改不了吃屎。癲狗就就是癲狗。

Now, just answer the question I asked directly and don't run away like a dog again.

Why is the western democracy only effective in RICH WESTERN COUNTRIES, but not other countries around the world?

作者: Prelude 時間: 2011-4-17 22:35

仆街啦你～我不溜都係有果句講果句。你估我好似阿爺啲擦鞋狗咁，收咗阿爺錢就不停咁舔佢屎眼？

你自己都 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-17 21:18

You don't think you 舔佢屎眼, then 仆街 me?
Your 仆街 talking style only make you a 仆街 and nobody would take your posts or comments in any meaningful way.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-17 23:25

Why is the western democracy only effective in RICH WESTERN COUNTRIES, but not other countries around the world?
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-17 22:07

低能仔，

民主制度淨係響富裕嘅西方社會先至有用？你無病阿化？

講國家GDP，中國係現今世界第二，除咗老美之外有邊個勁得過佢？但點解其他所有GDP都低過中國嘅國家裡面，又有咁多都係有一套相對上非常完善嘅民主體制？

講人均GDP嘅話，阿根廷、智利、委內瑞拉、巴西、哥斯達尼加等等嘅南美國家全部都並唔高（雖然都高過中國），但人地嘅民主體制又有重大問題咩？

再講多個同中國大陸最接近嘅例子：中華民國。你唔好話俾我聽中華民國係西方社會呀？人地國民黨49年由大陸着草走過去臺灣，個民主根基又好深咩？結果咪一樣搞得好好睇睇？人地已經成功政黨輪替咗兩次；在野黨兩次合法同和平咁顛覆咗當權嘅政府。

Democracy is only effective in rich western countries? 啲咁垃圾嘅廢話，我一句就 KO 你啦，仆街！

-力

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-4-17 23:42

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2011-4-17 23:51 編輯

低能仔，

民主制度淨係響富裕嘅西方社會先至有用？你無病阿化？

講國家GDP，中國係現今世界第二，除咗老 ...

再講多個同中國大陸最接近嘅例子：中華民國。你唔好話俾我聽中華民國係西方社會呀？人地國民黨49年由大陸着草走過去臺灣，個民主根基又好深咩？結果咪一樣搞得好好睇睇？人地已經成功政黨輪替咗兩次；在野黨兩次合法同和平咁顛覆咗當權嘅政府。
Lik 發表於 2011-4-17 23:25

Well, you can always learn from democratic India which is corrupt and poor. And also the Philippines which is corrupt.

If you really want to learn from the ROC. Did the ROC implement democracy the day they went to Taiwan in 1949? Did they implement democracy in 1911 when they founded the ROC?
Just look at Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and the UK. They all had a period of rapid economic growth before any form of democracy was introduced.

The size of China's population and geographic size, are already challenges to get everyone on the same page. Taiwan province is much smaller and more easily governed.

For China, what they need now is a stable society for rapid economic growth.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-17 23:52

廢話～

香港直情有晒你所講嘅條件啦？中共咪又係照樣唔俾香港有民主？

妖言惑眾...正仆街！

-力

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2011-4-17 23:54

本帖最後由 rainbow-davie 於 2011-4-17 23:56 編輯

Democracy Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Democracy_Index_2010.png(please remove the space between : and D )

Freedom of Party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009_Freedom_House_world_map.svg

Electoral Democracies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Electoral_democracies.png

Civil LIberty (freedom)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civil_liberties_world.PNG

Human Development Index (ie. the human rights)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2010_1.PNG

World GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gdp_nominal_and_ppp_2005_world_map_single_colour.png

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-18 00:07

低能仔，

民主制度淨係響富裕嘅西方社會先至有用？你無病阿化？

講國家GDP，中國係現今世界第二，除咗老 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-17 23:25

Just answer the question directly - whether the democracy system is effectives in the countries you just mentioned.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-18 00:14

又有幾唔 effective 呀？又不如等你講吓？我最期待你話過我聽臺灣民主有幾唔掂呀？最多咪議會開拖？比起中共對百姓各式各樣嘅暴力，議會嘈兩嘈、推撞扭打幾吓又算得係乜野？

你搭果個台俾我一野就踢爆玩完，好心你就自動收皮，咪鬼繼續自己丟自己架啦～

-力

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 00:16

低能仔，

民主制度淨係響富裕嘅西方社會先至有用？你無病阿化？

講國家GDP，中國係現今世界第二，除咗老 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-18 15:25

中國好多方面都好落後, 係呢20-30年先至好努力咁嘗試追上世界水平.
仲記得細細個既時候好多香港人會將d 自己唔用or 舊左既野運上大陸鄉下, 而家就已經冇呢支歌仔唱了. 睇黎大陸係當d 人民有錢d 先至開始搞民主, 希望我冇估錯啦.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 00:18

廢話～

香港直情有晒你所講嘅條件啦？中共咪又係照樣唔俾香港有民主？

妖言惑眾...正仆街！

-力 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-18 15:52

其實大陸都算係咁既喇, 話哂遲d 都可以普選特首, 我地呢d 生活o係殖民地社會多年既小市民已經覺得好幸福了.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-18 00:35

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-18 00:36 編輯

Democracy Index

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File: Democracy_Index_2010.png(please remove the spac ...
rainbow-davie 發表於 2011-4-17 23:54

If you put the maps each category on top of each other, the parts overlap consistently should reflect the questions I ask - "why does the western democracy seem to be only effective in rich western countries".

If you have the map of corruption to put on top, it should be more interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-18 00:42

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-18 01:00 編輯

又有幾唔 effective 呀？又不如等你講吓？我最期待你話過我聽臺灣民主有幾唔掂呀？最多咪議會開拖？比起中 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-18 00:14

Just look up the information provided by rainbow-Davie.

臺灣民主有幾掂呀? How is that compared to the western democracy in the rich western countries?

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 01:06

If you put the maps each category on top of each other, the parts overlap consistently should refl ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-18 16:35

乜大陸唔應該係最深色架咩? 莫非呢個排行都係大陸比錢wiki 令到自己淺色d? 哈哈~

作者: fy789 時間: 2011-4-18 07:25

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-18 09:47

其實大陸都算係咁既喇, 話哂遲d 都可以普選特首, 我地呢d 生活o係殖民地社會多年既小市民已經覺得好幸福了 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-4-18 00:18

咁你呢棵愚昧嘅牆頭草咪俾老共呃咗囉。一個只有投票權，但無題名權、無參選權嘅「選舉」，根本就唔符合國際社會普選嘅標準。你咁都收貨嘅話咪即係你白黐囉～

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-18 10:02

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-18 10:05 編輯

回復 57# Lik

Coward Lik.

Just answer the question directly instead running around to avoid facing it - why does the democracy seem to be effective only in rich western countries?

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-18 11:28

仆街，

我之前同 rainbow-davie 個 post 都答晒你啦～不過你條撚樣成世都係咁，人地答完仲要KO埋你之後，你都一樣照樣響到吠，做到好似我無答過咁。你啲咁嘅垃圾技倆，唔該行埋一邊啦～

賤種！

-力

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-18 14:29

回復 51# mcjohnjohn

Poor you MJJ, 唔做中,唔做保,唔做媒人三代好...

I don't know if Lik is in a very bad mood these days. If you don't remind me it's Lik I thought it is Yukman in LYK...

Quite honestly, most people discussing this post are having a fairly neutral tone, especially for Rocky this time. I can see his effort...

P.S. for Lik - Firing in an no-arm zone is quite annoying...

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 19:07

咁你呢棵愚昧嘅牆頭草咪俾老共呃咗囉。一個只有投票權，但無題名權、無參選權嘅「選舉」，根本就唔符合國際社會普選嘅標準。你咁都收貨嘅話咪即係你白黐囉～
Lik 發表於 2011-4-19 01:47

可能係我白痴啦, 但我覺得有得選已經好足夠了. 可能我深知自己係一個small potato, 唔會去提名人地, 人地都唔會提名自己去參與政治既活動. 所以果d 提名權同參選權我真係完全唔care, 只要有得比我投就可以了! 當然, 最好有人幫我搞掂張名單又合我心意啦~

-- 翹埋雙手等飯開既 MJJ

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 19:11

回復 mcjohnjohn

Poor you MJJ, 唔做中,唔做保,唔做媒人三代好...

I don't know if Lik is in a very b ...
lo_pak 發表於 2011-4-19 06:29

我不嬲都係有果句講果句, 冇政治立場既我就只有講下自己既意見, 咁比人話牆頭草我係完全理解既. 因為我每件事都會獨立分析, 針對事而唔係針對人丫麻.

我發表得意見, 就預左有人唔同意. 不過我人大左, 修養比較好少少, 好少話人仆街或者白黐咁law. 不過, 我相信人地咁話我都有佢既原因, 我會參考佢既意見去完善自己的~

-- 有人覺得做人冇中指既 MJJ

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-18 19:46

可能係我白痴啦, 但我覺得有得選已經好足夠了. 可能我深知自己係一個small potato, 唔會去提名人地, 人地都唔會提名自己去參與政治既活動. 所以果d 提名權同參選權我真係完全唔care, 只要有得比我投就可以了! 當然, 最好有人幫我搞掂張名單又合我心意啦~
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-4-18 19:07

你唔認為重要並唔代表實際上唔重要。無咗題名權嘅話，就即係等於你響屋企食飯，但阿爺會迫你從一碟餿水、一pat屎、同一碟發臭、變壞咗嘅餸裡面任揀一樣，而唔係自己話想食乜就食乜。無咗參選權，就即係你無得自己入廚房去煮餸。

你自己唔介意俾人迫你食屎嘅話，ok!但咁樣只係代表你自己唔介意食屎，而並唔代表食屎係一件好事。

-力

作者: sheep 時間: 2011-4-18 19:56

你唔認為重要並唔代表實際上唔重要。無咗題名權嘅話，就即係等於你響屋企食飯，但阿爺會迫你從一碟餿水、 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-18 19:46

你忘記咗另一個最大可能係
佢根本就鐘意食屎

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 20:03

你唔認為重要並唔代表實際上唔重要。無咗題名權嘅話，就即係等於你響屋企食飯，但阿爺會迫你從一碟餿水、一pat屎、同一碟發臭、變壞咗嘅餸裡面任揀一樣，而唔係自己話想食乜就食乜。無咗參選權，就即係你無得自己入廚房去煮餸。

你自己唔介意俾人迫你食屎嘅話，ok!但咁樣只係代表你自己唔介意食屎，而並唔代表食屎係一件好事。

-力
Lik 發表於 2011-4-19 11:46

力少, 你呢個比喻唔錯. 講真, 都食左三十幾年屎, 我唔介意繼續食多一段時間, 反正o係呢三十幾年食屎既生涯之中都冇乜唔滿意既地方. 當然有得自己揀係好既, 不過我其實唔多願意花時間去揀, 揀野好花精神架. 所以o係我接受得到既範圍內我唔介紹繼續食屎的.

-- 逆境自強 MJJ

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 20:04

你忘記咗另一個最大可能係
佢根本就鐘意食屎
sheep 發表於 2011-4-19 11:56

衰鬼, 你唔係唔記得我地尋晚一齊同台食飯.... 食屎丫麻?

作者: sheep 時間: 2011-4-18 20:08

同枱食屎
各自修行

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-18 20:10

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-18 20:19 編輯

The key words of the question I asked are “effectiveness” and “efficiency”. Many countries claim they are a democratic country. How effectively and efficiently would their democracy actually be?

Democracy is much more than just the “voting right”. However, some people take “voting right” as equal to democracy. And I also wonder whether those people had asked themselves the question – “what are the reasons for fighting for democracy and what do they want to achieve after receiving the democracy?”

Do they believe “democracy” is the silver bullet to the problems they are complaining or suffering? How do they know for sure “democracy” will bring them 社會公義, 解決貧富分化和民生困苦，使國家繁榮強大和給人民帶來富裕安定的生活 if the “voting right” is granted to them immediately as they asked for？

如果我沒有記錯，伊朗人民是不是也有選舉權？如果西方國家沒有給與巴勒斯坦選舉制度，恐怖組織哈馬斯可能沒那麼容易以合法手段取得政權吧？民主選舉是否解決了台灣的貪污腐敗問題？我們似乎看到不同政黨為取得選民支持不擇手段搞社會族群分化和政治獻金交易。

P.S. I had asked Lik for his definition of democracy and his answer, in conclusion, is basically the "voting right". I would recommend him to find out what democracy means first.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-18 21:01

低能兒，

我從來無講過民主就只係 voting rights。你估我好似你咁低能、咁低層次？

而我前前後後亦講過好多次民主唔係 silver bullet，亦唔能夠解決一切嘅問題。但正如 Winston Churchill 所講，It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.而我亦唔該你條粉腸唔好用啲垃圾 example 來渾淆視聽。

伊朗並唔係真正嘅民主，因為佢其實係政教合一，總統背後果個主教先至係最後話事人。對好多巴勒斯坦人來講，哈馬斯並唔太恐怖，而且往往有哈馬斯嘅實Q人員響到睇場，地方嘅治安反而更好。而且哈馬斯自己亦一直改變緊，裡面有 hardline 嘅人，但大勢係因為組織要合法參政，所以佢地亦轉向緊去迎合人民嘅要求。

而你話民主選舉無解決到臺灣貪污腐敗就更可笑。阿扁依家係自由身定係坐緊大牢？反之中國大陸境內，巧取豪奪嘅權貴如果唔係權鬥而失勢嘅話，都唔會俾人拉落馬。文明社會要拉人就一定係要講證據，所以永遠都只能夠係 reactive 而唔係 preemptive。而阿扁坐監就正正係反映咗民主體制之下，貪污腐敗問題係唔能夠逃出法網之外，那怕你係前總統都係咁話！

民主唔係萬能，但卻係 best of the worst。而你不斷去扭曲事實來為阿爺護短，就正正係 worst of the worst!

-力

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 21:08

而你話民主選舉無解決到臺灣貪污腐敗就更可笑。阿扁依家係自由身定係坐緊大牢？反之中國大陸境內，巧取豪奪嘅權貴如果唔係權鬥而失勢嘅話，都唔會俾人拉落馬。文明社會要拉人就一定係要講證據，所以永遠都只能夠係 reactive 而唔係 preemptive。而阿扁坐監就正正係反映咗民主體制之下，貪污腐敗問題係唔能夠逃出法網之外，那怕你係前總統都係咁話！
Lik 發表於 2011-4-19 13:01

乜呀扁呢d 巧取豪奪嘅權貴唔係因為失左勢先至比人秋後算帳架咩?

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-18 21:22

乜呀扁呢d 巧取豪奪嘅權貴唔係因為失左勢先至比人秋後算帳架咩?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-4-18 21:08

失勢？你無病呀化？佢果隻叫做任期完結，然後就要同所有臺灣人一樣咁去接受法律嘅審判。中國大陸果啲，仲做緊官但係卻響權鬥裡面失勢，而藉此被人翻舊障、拉落馬，呢啲就係只需要對權貴負責，而無需要對人民交代嘅惡果。但如果你後台夠勁嘅話，過多三兩年之後你背後嘅幫派勢力又一樣可以幫你上返位，最多只不過係調去第二個闢啲嘅地方繼續 cap 水，同以後無辦法真係上去一線位置，達到權力核心。呢啲例子，響中國大陸裡面根本就係屢見不鮮。

-力

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 21:34

失勢？你無病呀化？佢果隻叫做任期完結，然後就要同所有臺灣人一樣咁去接受法律嘅審判。中國大陸果啲，仲 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-19 13:22

你去問下人阿扁係唔係因為失勢先至比人刮左咁多野出黎比人做喇...

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-18 21:53

Coward Lik.

You never had the gut to answer my questions directly and I give you one more chance to do so.

First, do you admit there is a difference between the democracy in western countries and other countries around the world in terms of "effectiveness" and "efficiency"?

Second, tell us the reasons why those differences exist? If you do not see there is any difference in term of "effectiveness" and "efficiency", then also tell us the reasons why you believe so.

Let's see whether you have the gut to face the reality. But I would have a doubt.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-4-18 22:20

Let's see whether you have the gut to face the reality. But I would have a doubt.
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-19 13:53

乜你咁老土架? 我小學畢業之後都冇用過呢d 激將法啦! 冇用架...

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-18 23:07

Coward Lik.

You never had the gut to answer my questions directly and I give you one more chance to do so.

First, do you admit there is a difference between the democracy in western countries and other countries around the world in terms of "effectiveness" and "efficiency"?

Second, tell us the reasons why those differences exist? If you do not see there is any difference in term of "effectiveness" and "efficiency", then also tell us the reasons why you believe so.

Let's see whether you have the gut to face the reality. But I would have a doubt.
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-18 21:53

Moron,

Stop wasting my time. Your stupid lead-in questions are not going to work on me because I just see right through them. And lemme remind you, your second question is poorly worded because it assumes I would feed you the answer that you've pre-determined, and that is simply just wrong.

In page 5, post #45, I have already given you examples of how Southern American countries such as Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, and Costa Rica are non-western countries that have sufficiently effective and efficient democracies, thereby defeating your entirely false premise that democracy only works in rich, western countries. I even quoted the Republic of China as the closest example to what Mainland China can ever hope to achieve, as it is yet another effective democracy. And yet despite all this evidence, you have continued to refused to accept that your assumption is incorrect, and that you have already lost your argument.

None of the democracies I mentioned are perfect. In fact, democracy is far from perfect even in your so-called effective and efficient western countries. But as Winston Churchill has said, democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

I don't see any point in wasting my valuable time on the little piece of turd that you are. But I will say that for all its faults and inefficiencies, the Republic of China is a sufficiently mature democracy. From the time when KMT fled to Taiwan until the first signs of democracy appeared, it only took ROC a mere 30-something years. 作為中華民國第六屆總統，蔣經國有呢個見識同擔當去講「時代在變、潮流在變、環境在變」，然後講完之後嘅第二年臺灣就解除黨禁，而民進黨亦正式成為中華民國嘅第一個反對黨。我地中國大陸嘅溫家寶影帝近年（舊年？）亦響出國訪問嘅時候講過啲相類似嘅說話，話咩「民主潮流，順者倡逆者忙」之類。但就憑佢堂堂總理之身，呢句說話講完之後卻係完全無被任何媒體響中國大陸裡面報導，而解除黨禁、報禁之類就更加唔使指意！

誰高誰低，顯而易見！

-Lik

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-19 01:33

回復 72# mcjohnjohn

I'm thinking of 李登輝...

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-19 08:18

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-19 08:25 編輯

In page 5, post #45, I have already given you examples of how Southern American countries such as Argentina, Chile, Venezuela, Brazil, and Costa Rica are non-western countries that have sufficiently effective and efficient democracies, thereby defeating your entirely false premise that democracy only works in rich, western countries.
Lik 發表於 2011-4-18 23:07

Just read what I said in page 6, post#53. Just put those maps on top of each other and see what you get. Don't tell me the color of those countries (except Chile) are the same as western countries.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following content is to share with other LYKs but not the shameless mad dog Lik.

The content of democracy is much greater than just "voting right". The effectiveness and efficiency of the democracy system in each country is also an indispensably critical measure of the system implemented. In addition, the effectiveness and efficiency can be measured in different categories.

What I wan to share is that "Democracy" as a form of political systems evolved over time same as other form of political systems in human history.

Similar to other form of political systems, the development and establishment of democracy will depend on the availability of its required conditions, the time allowing it to evolve and mature its effectiveness and efficiency.

To ordinary citizens in general, "democracy" is not the END of what they are looking for. "Democracy today" is same as other political systems that it is just a form of governing to allow a country to develop and its ordinary citizens to achieve what they are longing for - 富裕安定的生活，社會公義和公平得到保證，國家繁榮強大。

As the human society continues to evolve into the future, the democracy we are having today could become ineffective and inefficient as a governing system. It will be replaced by another more suitable system instead.

That is the reason why I am confident that the political system of China will evolve since it as a country has been rapidly evolving over the past 30 years. No one will be able to stop that and it has never failed in human history.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-19 09:09

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-19 09:11 編輯

Just to clarify the "democracy" said in my post #77.

The "democracy" was referred to a political system and a form governing, but not "democracy" as human value.

I believe many people are confused about the difference between "democracy" as a form of governing and human value.

I hope my clarification will help people to understand what I have been saying.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-19 10:48

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-4-19 10:51 編輯

回復 77# rockypath

Seems like people that are anticipating the CCP in the early 50's...

IMO, I feel okay with the central government. However, for local governments, especially for those along the coast, well, well, well...

One of the problem within the system is the authorization of funds. With power, it's just so simple to generate easy income (both legal and illegal). The benefits between different interest groups are inter-connected and complicated. Corruption is a common phenomenon throughtout the entire Chinese history, it's more like a culture implanted into the minds of the authority. Without the proper system for separation of powers (executive, legislature, and judiciary), with merely the improvement of the existing system is totally useless... If it does, CCP is no longer CCP...

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-19 11:33

回復 79# lo_pak

I would say China current governing system is prttey effective and efficient to the fact of China's current political and economic situation, legal structure and general education level. As we can see, living standard, international influence, human right and pulitical feedom has been improved compare to 30 and 50 years ago.

Therefore, I do not see the possibility of CCP being overthrown any time soon.

Having said that, CCP will not be able to escape the fate that it will be eventurally replaced. It has never failed in human history.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-19 12:00

回復 80# rockypath

I do hope that one day there comes the age of enlightenment in our Chinese history...

And that's the true "中華人民共和國", not the "中國" under "共產黨"...

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-19 12:10

I would say China current governing system is prttey effective and efficient to the fact of China's current political and economic situation, legal structure and general education level. As we can see, living standard, international influence, human right and pulitical feedom has been improved compare to 30 and 50 years ago.
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-19 11:33

原來對你來講，由文革比人鬥臭、殺死轉變為只係比共慘黨無敵剝削、侵權、被失蹤、被和諧就已經係一個合格嘅大進步。

多謝你再一次承認你嘅無恥。

-力

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-4-19 12:35

回復 82# Lik

鄧小平: "中國不走回頭路...

Give it some time... The future is still a long way to go...

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-19 15:22

原來對你來講，由文革比人鬥臭、殺死轉變為只係比共慘黨無敵剝削、侵權、被失蹤、被和諧就已經係一個合格 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-19 12:10

The reality won't change just because you deny admitting it.

作者: Ovaltine 時間: 2011-4-20 11:51

本帖最後由 Ovaltine 於 2011-4-20 12:00 編輯

回復 lo_pak

I would say China current governing system is prttey effective and efficient to the f ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-19 11:33

From a political and economical point of view, yes. From a social point of view, no. The problem with the Chinese society is the lack of morality and social justice. In China, and the United States to a certain extent, money is above all. Civilizations of the world have set up a value system where the accumulation wealth is the end goal. This is similar to most addictions, we are all here chasing a high. From Great Britain's colonialism to America's imperialism, and now Chinese the so called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" I don't argue the Chinese way is a good system to create wealth and prosperity, but as Ai wei wei said, "if the chinese people are to create a properous society just to have bigger houses, bigger cars, biggers planes, that would be a shame."

I think most people that are speaking for the Communist regime are businessmen that benefited from economic reform in the 1980s. The thing most of these businessmen don't understand is, Chinese had been the manufacturing factory of the world since 1980s and how come we haven't transformed into a society with designing capabilities like the states or germany? Because Chinese's education system create obedient students to generate more workforce for the factories. Until the rich businessmen and the chinese communist party aristocrats start giving power to educate our citizens, we will not be civilized and achieve equality.

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-4-20 11:56

From a political and economical point of view, yes. From a social point of view, no. The problem w ...
Ovaltine 發表於 2011-4-20 11:51

Ai wei wei, the fat guy, sure tells you nutrition is very good in China nowadays.

作者: Ovaltine 時間: 2011-4-25 13:03

So why does democracy doesn't work in China? I want to pretend to be derrick jensen. "Let me bash education for a moment." Why does our Asian parents bring our kids here? Because its universally agreed the Chinese society is inferior. This brings me to the education problem in China. In the public schools in China, there is one book for every grade on every subject. Every student gets taught the same book, brainwashing much? Is this enriching our citizens with knowledge or turning them into society's slave to work in factories for the rich business men and the government? The lack of knowledge promotes stupidity, obedience and lack of free thinking. All this in turn let our civilians fall pray to market capitalism, materialism and herd mentality so our people cannot vote logically for the right leader.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-25 13:55

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-25 13:57 編輯

The lack of knowledge promotes stupidity, obedience and lack of free thinking. ..
Ovaltine 發表於 2011-4-25 13:03

I don't think the crisis for the mainland Chinese is lack of knowledge. It could be true in the past, but the fact is that the Chinese are becoming more and more educated. People in China are still being able to receive information from outside, and China is not as isolated as you thought. Not even to mention the number of Chinese tourists to overseas is rapidly growing every year.

I would take the crisis of value system (價值觀和道德觀) a more serious problem. I also agree this is 文革造成的後遺症.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-25 14:30

I don't think the crisis for the mainland Chinese is lack of knowledge. It could be true in the past, but the fact is that the Chinese are becoming more and more educated. People in China are still being able to receive information from outside, and China is not as isolated as you thought. Not even to mention the number of Chinese tourists to overseas is rapidly growing every year.

I would take the crisis of value system (價值觀和道德觀) a more serious problem. I also agree this is 文革造成的後遺症.
rockypath 發表於 2011-4-25 13:55

多鳩餘啦你～ People in China can receive information from outside 嘅話，你中國就有得玩 Facebook、上 YouTube、唔會有敏感詞啦～

話你一味死幫阿爺撐又唔認...

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-25 14:47

多鳩餘啦你～ People in China can receive information from outside 嘅話，你中國就有得玩 Facebook、上 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-25 14:30

Facebook and Youtube are not the only sources of information.

Don't need to argue with me. Just ask your be-loved brother KingKong to tell you his own experience. Did he have the ability to know what is going on outside of China when he was in China?

Just ask yourself this question - why does the Chinese government want to block Facebook and Youtube? What is your thought on this?

P.S. I am still waiting for your explanation of law and morality. Choose to be a coward again?

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-4-25 15:06

仆街，

你估淨係 FB 同 YouTube呀？中國大陸裡面有得上外國嘅新聞網站咩？我又唔見你講敏感詞呢個問題？

一日就淨係識得叫人搵 quote 來答你，我唔該你去用吓自己個腦啦？成世人都徵係識得用屎忽諗野～

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-4-25 15:23

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-4-25 15:25 編輯

仆街，

你估淨係 FB 同 YouTube呀？中國大陸裡面有得上外國嘅新聞網站咩？我又唔見你講敏感詞呢個問題？

...
Lik 發表於 2011-4-25 15:06

I did not ask you for quote. I just asked you to ask your be-loved brother KingKong for his own experience.

成個宅男個樣，對著電腦自己發夢就以為外面的世界就係你想象個樣。

Why don't you just go and ask Kingkong. I don't think he would mind to answer your questions.

Don't be a coward. Afraid to face the reality again?

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