關於 slogan example ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

台灣最大公約數 – 反共去統不反中
The True Common Denominator of Taiwan

我察覺到一個新的台灣共識（最大公約數）正在成形，而且已經接近完成。雖然許多人還沒意識到這點，也還有一些人尚處在無感、或雖然有感但心理上拒絕的階段。

I sensed a New Taiwan Consensus is forming and near completion, although many are still not fully aware of it, some at the psychological stage of ignoring it and some even in total denial .

這新共識可以用三個原素的一句話來總結：反共、去統、不反中國平民。三元素環環相扣，構成了一個具有主旋律的直白命題：那些已經把台灣視為自己家鄉的人，已經把台灣當成一個與他方無涉的主體。

This New Consensus can be summarized in one expression with three parallel elements: opposing communism, de-unification and neutralness toward Chinese civilians. These three elements constitute an organic whole with a common theme that simply says, people who took Taiwan as their home deemed themselves as one distinct entity .

為了讓人們充分理解這三元素的意義，需要做一些進一步闡釋。我們這就開始。

I understand some elaboration may be needed to allow the three elements to be fully appreciated, especially the third one. Let me begin.

1. 反共。台灣其實並沒有那麼反對自由的社會主義；事實上，台灣社會本身在日常生活型態中就含有明顯的自由社會主義的痕跡。但是，台灣絕不會容忍社會主義精神脫序到共產主義的地步。若然，那種社會主義就是敵人，沒有討論的餘地。台灣海峽彼岸的中國共產黨（CCP），就屬於這一類。

1. Opposing Communism – Taiwan is not that much against liberal socialism. In fact,there is a rather obvious strain of it already existing in its social life. However, Taiwan would not tolerate socialism when carried away to the extent of communism, and would take it as enemy. Period. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other end of the Strait falls into this category.

2. 去統。在台灣，不但老一輩了解中共天天掛在嘴邊玩弄的「統一」，只不過是其用來維持政權、控制已經被洗過腦平民的一種虛偽口號，而年輕一輩只會以荒謬視之。因而，此處並沒有用過去的「反統」一詞，而是用「去統」，表示了一種將「統一」概念徹底由腦中去除的意思。就像「大掃除」的意思一樣，老早就該扔掉的東西就把它扔掉。

2. De-Unification – Not only do the older generations realize that the jingling of
“unification” of the CCP is just a bogus slogan for upholding its regime’s control
over the brain-washed civilians, the young generation of Taiwan simply finds the
slogan ridiculous. Therefore, rather than using the term “anti-Unification” as people used to do in the past, I think “De-Unification” – the unshackling of the very idea of unification, as one can relate with the word “de-clutter”- is a better suited term.

3. 不反中，指的是對中國平民保持中性的態度。過去三年間，包括我自己以及國際輿論，已經破除了那個存在已久的迷思 – 中共CCP就等同中國。情況根本不是這樣的。中共不等同中國，更不用說等同中國人民了。中共是一個具有9千8百萬黨員的巨大政黨，但那只是住在那塊土地上的14億人當中的7%。

3. Neutralness towards Chinese Civilians – In the past three years, people in Taiwan including myself, as well as the international community, have debunked the long-existed myth that CCP Is China. No, far from it. CCP is NOT equivalent to China, let alone the Chinese people. CCP is a huge party of 98 million members and that accounts for only 7% of the 1.4 billion Chinese people living on that landmass.

簡單的算數就可以呈現真相。對任何國家，如果僅佔7%的人口可以在政治上完全控制100%的人口，唯一的可能就是實施殘酷暴力或通過暴力改變人的頭腦。

Simple math would tell the truth. In any nation, when 7% of the population politically controls 100% of the population, it would be an impossibility unless by brutal violence or total brain coercion.

中國平民本身就是受害者。其他的國家，不應該膝蓋反應式的把受害者視為天生就是邪惡的。因此，無論在心態上還是現實地緣政治考慮下，台灣社會都應該把「必反」這詞留給共產黨而不是受害的平民。

Therefore, considering the Chinese civilians are victims themselves, people from other parts of the world should not act in a knee-jerk way towards the ordinary, victimized Chinese Civilians as if they are born evil. Either under a proper mindset or the practicality associated with geopolitics, Taiwanese society should and is starting to understand this point. “Anti-“ is an attitude reserved for CCP and not intrinsically for the ordinary and mostly victimized civilians.

這才是台灣的最大公約數。然而，為了選票的政治人物及民調機構拖累了台灣。每年每月的民調都在問早已失效的問題：你偏藍還是偏綠？你贊成獨立還是統一？

Putting together the above three Elements, thus there is the New Taiwan Consensus. What’s falling behind and dragging Taiwan’s feet, are the ballot-hungry politicians and the various outdated polling agencies. They do so many so-called popular surveys every year, sometimes monthly. And they stick to the long invalid way of setting up their survey questions: Are you favoring Green (DPP) or Blue(KMT)? Are you pro-independent or Pro-unification?

這種自我設限或自我審查的問法，使得其他國家以為台灣是個分裂社會。

This kind of self-confined or self-censored surveys leave other nations the impression that Taiwan is a split society, Green or Blue, Independence or unification etc.

台灣這種導致外人認為台灣是個分裂國家的作法，實在愚蠢。如果問的問題對，台灣是沒有分裂的。例如，如果將「你贊不贊成獨立」改為「你反共不反共」，結果肯定是98%以上。

It’s such a foolish thing to do for Taiwan itself misleading outsiders into deeming Taiwan as a split country. There is absolutely no split should the right questions be asked in the surveys. For example, had the question been changed from “Are you pro-independence or anti-independence” into “Are you pro-communism or anti-communism”，then the result would have been a clear-cut 98% or even 99.5% towards “anti”.

若問「你是反中國共產黨還是反中國老百姓」，前者不會低於80%，後者不會高於20%。

Now, try this further question: “Are you anti-Chinese Communist Party, or anti-Chinese common people”, my guess is the former gets at least 80% and the latter gets 20% at most.

第三個問題：「你願不願意被共產黨統治」，保證結果是99.9%的「不願意」。
The third question: “Would you be willing to live under the Communist Rule”? That would guarantee a resounding NO answer of 99.9%.

這就是新台灣共識、社會的最大公約數，應該向世界大聲、清楚、不含糊的說出來。

This is exactly how the New Taiwan Consensus looks like – the true common denominator among a seemingly divided Taiwan. And the New Taiwan Consensus should be articulated to the rest of the world, no vagueness, no grey area and unambiguously.

不信的話，可以用上述問題做幾次民調。而且我保證，在不久的將來，所有民主國家都會端出類似「台灣共識」的政策原則。

For any surveyor or politician who still has doubts about this New Taiwan Consensus, he or she can just conduct new surveys with questions suggested as above. And, I myself am convinced, in a not-so-distant future, all democratic countries on the planet would issue national policies based on guidelines similar to the New Taiwan Consensus, for the goodness of their respective countries.

所以，台灣為什麼不這樣做呢？這可是台灣展示世界政治領導力的機會啊！

So, Hey, Taiwan! Why not put a thrust on this Taiwan Consensus to the world by publicizing it unambiguously and show some political leadership, just for once?

後記：以雙語向全球發聲，將是我接下致力的方向。所使用的這兩種文字，涵蓋了35億人口，接近地球的一半人數。這個行動，將以 「前哨預策」網站 為核心基地，其他的社交媒體，只要有傳播力道，都會被用為衛星來做整體運作。

個人的思考、判斷不一定對，您也不見得同意，但是，我保證這平台中的每一句話都是獨立的、出自內心的。而今天的台灣，乃至於世界，最缺的就是突破傳統成見、不受黨派左右、同時又知錯能改的獨立思考力量。不知您是否同意？

「前哨預策」平台將分為三步走：內容平台 – 互動平台 – 行動平台。剛誕生的它，當前還只是個內容平台，但達到一定數量的會員支持後，將加入各種新媒體形式，與會員就重要議題互動，並以「達成不同意見之間的最大公約數」為目標。一旦在會員內部形成「最大公約數」後，就構成了行動的基礎。至於行動的形式，也由願意推動或參與的會員決定。

此平台婉拒任何政黨、政府的贊助，只接受個人會員或企業會員的贊助；所有收入及贊助，均將用於「讓台灣更好」的事務上，以及推動、發揮台灣作為東亞及世界的「關鍵少數」的槓桿角色，為人類下一波文明做出量力而為的貢獻。

我只能說，十年來的不斷保持獨立，希望能換得您對「不受任何政黨、政府左右」這一點點價值的認同。

范疇
謹上

於台灣
首頁鏈接： InsightFan.com
訂閱鏈接： https://www.insightfan.com/membershipspricing/

【#TheDiplomat: 沈旭暉隨緣家書英文版🇭🇰】很久沒有向國際關係評論網 The Diplomat 供稿，但國際線十分重要，不應放棄。這次他們希望分享23條、國安法、反恐法風雨欲來的「新香港」前瞻，願國際社會能多了解快將出現的危機：

While the world is preoccupied with a fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been tightening its political grip on all aspects of Hong Kong’s civil society. Rumor has it that Beijing will push through legislating national security laws under Article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law by unconventional means, such as massively disqualifying pro-democratic legislators or even directly applying a national law, widely argued as a major step to destroy the rights and freedom of Hong Kongers, and bring Chinese authoritarianism to Hong Kong.

After the 2019 protests, the administration of Carrie Lam, who theoretically is still leading the special administrative region of China, has little political capital at stake, with its legitimacy reaching rock bottom. The pro-government camp has dwindling prospects for the city’s upcoming Legislative Council election. The government‘s ”nothing to lose“ mentality is apparent from its recent blatant reinterpretation of the Basic Law’s Article 22 (another article that limits the influence of China’s offices in Hong Kong’s internal affairs). The debate is nothing new, but the pressure this time is quite different.

This article highlights the different strategies Beijing could adopt to enact Article 23 insidiously or under disguise to avoid backlash from the international community, while continuing to reap benefits from the city’s globally recognized special status. This seems to be part of Beijing’s brinkmanship to bring Hong Kong protesters and their supporters to their knees and move the city closer to authoritarianism. To counter these moves, Hong Kongers must define the boundaries beyond which Hong Kong falls into authoritarian rule and make a case as to why the city’s downfall is detrimental to the international community‘s interest.

The Long-Term Controversy Over National Security Laws

Back in 2003, the implementation of Article 23 was thwarted by the moderate pro-establishment politician James Tien. In face of overwhelming public disapproval of the law, he withdrew support and votes from his Liberal Party. However, 17 years later, it is hard to imagine Beijing following the old legislative playbook: start with a public consultation, followed by public discourse and political debate, and end with the majority rule. This playbook only works in peaceful societies ruled by a trustworthy government with integrity.

The aftermath of 2003, as well as the 2019 protests, should have taught Beijing and the Hong Kong government a lesson: pushing through national security legislation in a flawed parliament controlled by the minority pro-government camp would inevitably set off another full city-scale protest — and undoubtedly more fierce and focused this time. Given the current government’s numerous displays of dishonesty, it is conceivable that they will embark on a less-traveled path to implement Article 23.

Strategy One: “Anti-Terrorism”

In principle, one possible strategy could be to directly enact Chinese national law across Hong Kong, which can be achieved by declaring a state of emergency in the city. However, this is risky business as it would tarnish the integrity of “one country two systems” and subsequently Hong Kong’s international standing. Beijing, a risk-averse regime, is also unwilling to see Hong Kong’s status as a middleman for laundering money disappear into thin air.

Instead, Beijing could be concocting a narrative that would see Chinese national law applied to Hong Kong while not damaging Hong Kong’s international standing and Beijing’s own interests. The key word in this script is “anti-terrorism.” As early as 2014, pro-Beijing scholars have been claiming the emergence of “local terrorist ideology” on Hong Kong soil. Since the anti-extradition bill protests last year, government rhetoric frequently described the protests, which caused no deaths at all in the entire year, with phrases like “inclination to terrorist ideology.” That was a signal to the world that Hong Kong’s internal conflicts had ballooned into a national security issue. This gives the government the legitimacy to justify the implementation of Chinese national laws across the highly autonomous region to counter terrorism. The Chinese government knows that if it can persuade the world that terrorism exists in Hong Kong, and that it is as severe as the terror threat facing many other nations today, the international community will be less critical of Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong. Enacting Chinese laws directly is a convenient path that will save Beijing from having to tackle Hong Kong’s internal conflicts, basically turning the Hong Kong issue into a nonissue.

Strategy Two: Stacking the Legislature by Disqualifying Candidates

An even bolder strategy was probably foretold by a recent incident where the Hong Kong government and Beijing’s agencies for Hong Kong affairs (HKMAO and the Liaison Office) jointly criticized lawmaker Dennis Kwok for filibustering, framing it as “misconduct in public office” and “violating his oath.” It is incomprehensible to claim that filibustering goes against a lawmaker’s main duty; rather, it is common understanding that legislative work includes debating the law and representing public opinion against unreasonable laws. In a parliament controlled by the minority, pro-democratic members representing the majority of Hong Kongers are forced to express their objections using means like filibustering. Wouldn’t a lack of different political opinions turn the legislative branch into a rubber-stamp institution?

The above allegation has set a dangerous precedent for twisting the logic behind a certain provision in the Basic Law to target opposing lawmakers. In other words, to fulfill Beijing’s interpretation of the principal requirement for holding public office in Hong Kong, one could be required to take a meticulously legalistic approach to uphold the Basic Law down to its every single wording. A public official, by this new definition, not only needs to support “one country, two systems” or object Hong Kong independence, but also must abide by every single provision in the Basic Law. Worst of all, based on the previous cases, whether an official’s words or actions oversteps a provision is up to Beijing’s interpretation of his/her “intent.”

If this approach is applied, in the next election, there might be additional official questions for screening candidates like the following: “The Basic Law states that the enactment of Article 23 is a constitutional duty. Failing to support Article 23 legislation violates the Basic Law. Do you support it?” This question would suffice to disqualify even moderate or even pro-establishment candidates like James Tien. Even if any pro-democratic candidates were elected, once Article 23 re-enters the legislative process, they could risk ouster by raising objections.

Despite the absurdity of this tactic, the Chinese regime may just be tempted enough if such a strategy could resolve two of China’s current nuisances — voices of dissent in the Legislative Council and the previous failure to implement Article 23.

Strategy Three: The “Boiling Frog Effect”

Article 23 is not yet implemented, but the dystopian world that the protesters pictured in 2003 is already becoming reality. Regular citizens have been persecuted for “sedition” for sharing their views on social media or participating in legal protests; workers face retaliation for taking part in strikes; corporations are pressured to publicly side with the government’s stance; employees who have the “wrong” political views are fired; schools have been closely monitored for teaching material; protest-supporting fundraisers were framed for money laundering; a retweet or like may lead to persecution, under a colonial-era law. Only now have Hong Kongers woken up to their new reality — although the Basic Law technically protects citizens’ rights to speak, rally, march, demonstrate, and go on strike, the government could enfeeble civil rights by bending antiquated laws and legal provisions. The frequent abuse of law enforcement power on a small scale, such as improper arrests and police violence, is desensitizing the public and the international community. In a few years, Hong Kong will become unrecognizable. This is indeed a clever play on Beijing’s part to slowly strip away Hong Kong’s autonomy and freedom, without causing much international attention.

Counter-Strategies Against Beijing’s Brinkmanship

Beijing’s overarching goal is to hollow out Hong Kong but, at the same time, avoid major backlash from the international community, which could spell the end of the privileged global status of Hong Kong not granted to other Chinese cities. Beijing also aims at preventing single incidents that could cascade down into mass protests as seen in 2003, 2014, and 2019; and eliminating any resistance forces from within Hong Kong’s legislature. The tactics outlined above are typical in a game of brinkmanship.

In response, Hong Kongers in Hong Kong and on the so-called “international frontline” must know their strengths and bargaining chips on this negotiating table with Beijing.

Unlike Xinjiang and Tibet, Hong Kong is a city with transparency and free flow of information. Hong Kongers need to make a case to the world that the protests are not acts of terrorism. Some suggestions include comparing the Hong Kong protests to similar struggles in 20 or so other counties in the world at the present time, none of which were classified as terrorism; collecting a large amount of concrete evidence of the disproportionate use of force by the Hong Kong police; and showing how enacting Chinese national laws in Hong Kong will end the city’s autonomy and spell disaster for international community‘s interests.

The Legislative Council is the institution that can counteract Beijing’s “boiling frog” strategy and to keep Hong Kongers’ hope alive in the system. Those who plan to run for legislative office must be prepared to be disqualified from running. If only individuals are banned, there need to be alternative candidates as back-up plans. However, if and when the disqualification process is applied broadly to entire camps of candidates (for example, all who object to Article 23), the pro-democracy camp must make a strong case to the Hong Kong and global public that this is the endgame for Hong Kong democracy. Then the incumbent popularly elected legislators will hold the internationally recognized mandate from the public and serve as the last resistance.

These recommendations delineates how the slogan “if we burn, you burn with us,” often seen in the protests, may play out in the game of international relations. If the national security laws are “passed” by a legislature that is jury-rigged in this manner, or if related national laws are directly implemented in Hong Kong, Hong Kongers should signal clearly to the world that it goes way beyond the promised “one country, two systems.” Crossing this red line by Beijing should be seen by the world as a blunt violation of its promised autonomy to Hong Kongers. At that time, if the international community led by the United States and the United Kingdom decided to revoke the “non-sovereignty entity” status of Hong Kong and regard the SAR as an ordinary Chinese city, it shouldn’t come as a surprise.

Dr. Simon Shen is the Founding Chairman of GLOs (Glocal Learning Offices), an international relations start-up company. He also serves as an adjunct associate professor in the University of Hong Kong, Chinese University of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, and associate director of the Master of Global Political Economy Programme of the CUHK. The author acknowledges Jean Lin, Coco Ho, Chris Wong, Michelle King, and Alex Yap for their assistance in this piece.

▶️ 高度自治 vs 全面管治
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwt8wZl8jHQ

只睇7.1嘅表面或者單一現象，將香港年輕人判斷並報道為暴徒係太盲目，不成熟嘅做法(日文後ろ By Soko)

究竟咩嘢推到佢地咁樣嘅地步？咩嘢逼到佢地自殺，變成死士？其憤怒，絕望之根源係咩嘢，萬惡之源究竟係邊，要正視，要探討，要深思。

7月1日香港の若者たちが立法議会に突撃した行為が様々な議論を醸し出しています。
...Continue ReadingIt is too blind and immature to judge and report the young people in Hong Kong as thugs (After Japanese)

What exactly has pushed them like this? What forced them to commit suicide and become a dead man? What is the root of anger and despair? The source of all evil lies, we should face it, explore and think deeply.

July 1th, the acts that young people in Hong Kong have attacked the legislative assembly are creating various discussions.

Many Hong Kong youth and citizens are dissatisfied with the fact that multiple media in Japan wrote a mob of Hong Kong young people or mob.

What is in the root of Hong Kong Youth's anger?

According to a social worker who was at the site on July 1th, there were 1 young people who were prepared to act on death.

Democratic lawmakers are going to jail, they might be shot by gun, reconsider! I tried to stop, but," already three (suicide) Dead! I don't even know what to say! I'm ready for the assault!"

In the process of temporary occupation from the assault to the legislative assembly, there was an act of writing a slogan to beat the window, break the equipment, and criticize the government on the wall. It may probably not be the act that many democratic people wanted.

There will also be an excuse to suppress the parents of the parents, and there will also be a union that tries to take advantage of the actions of young people, and it will also be an element that will be suspected of the nature of the demonstration that has been moving on to the back of peace. No, the foreign media and international public opinion that will support you can also be away...

There was a destruction of windows, equipment, and the slogan of political criticism to the wall, but for the historical and cultural value, " don't destroy this!" There was also a side of paying money without being protected or drinking at the legislative assembly. Therefore, it does not mean that the vandalism is allowed. I'm going to tell you that there was a side like that too. The subject of vandalism was not a person but a thing consistent with things.

Various discussions are winding up on July 1th. I think I need to take a look at what is the base of Hong Kong's youth, anger, and despair, without being left alone in the video and superficial events.

June 9th 100 million demonstrations will be held. Mr. Lam, the top secretary of Hong Kong, is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the one who is the After that, I've been watching three watarai on the media for 10 days and 11 days, but I don't listen to opinion just by claiming the legitimacy of the fugitive ordinance.

In the morning of June 12th, in the tv interview, the ordinance will never withdraw, and the mother, the young man of Hong Kong, to the son," comment that I can't forgive the selfish act of my son," This is how the mother of Hong Kong was angry that the mother of Hong Kong did not deserve to name you, and in Hong Kong, the protest assembly of the unprecedented mothers was held.

When the democratic party announces a statement to rum and the government who continue to ignore the request of opinion, and the democratic party announces the statement, Mr. Lam takes out an example of the determination that has happened in the past years, and he is severely punished. Intimidated the young man.

For a series of response such as the lamb administration, citizens are disappointed, and the government who does not listen to what they say, if this ordinance has been passed to such a government, what is the security of our freedom and safety? It's going to be... fear and worries are getting more and more bloated.

The only way left was to enter the legislative assembly at the time of the second deliberation of the 12th, and to disrupt the deliberation and stop the pass, this day the police squad and the demonstrators collided hard, and the video was also The clearly captured police force was accused of violence, but the government did not follow police violence, and the people's demonstrations were defined as riot, and 32 people were arrested. My name has become a riot sin.

After that, while police assault was severely criticized by the international society, the g20 that was taken by xi jinping was imminent, and the government said that the government will stop the deliberation of the ordinance. In Japan, some media have been featured in the fact that some media have expressed the revocation of the facts, and the voices of the people and the voices of praise have risen, but the citizens of Hong Kong are not suspended = they are not withdraw, and there is a possibility that they will resume in the future. And above all, I understand the fear of the government that has not been able to stay in the middle of a hard posture that has been ignoring opinion for a long time.

And 200 million + 1 demonstrations happen. The screams of Hong Kong people have arrived in the whole world. This is what the rum administration did in the form of an apology conference as a pose, but the citizens were not able to do it, but the lamb administration did not try to listen to the citizens's demands. I did.

On July 1, the demonstrators requested an emergency meeting to the secretary of rum, but it was rejected by Mr. Lam for the reason that he was busy.

In the conflict between citizens and governments by today, the despair of young people in Hong Kong went to I, the one who chose to die (three people), or the people who were prepared to act with the death of the death. (the young man who entered the legislative assembly), what is the root of the evil that is like this, the anger and despair of this kind of anger and despair? On the essential main axis, I think that the government has been stepping on the opinion, not listening to the voice of the young people, without respect, and continuing to trampled until today.

Anger is beyond the limit, despair, and the thoughts of the young people who are going to be in the middle of the day, the thoughts of the young people who are in the middle of the day, without listening to the voice, without seeing what is behind it, the radical footage and single I think it's a very short-cut judgement to see only the events and easily put it on the mob.

What is in the back of their despair and anger, I think they need to look at what they have made them.

I'm not going to defend the destructive act, but the wrath of the young people is in the middle of the day, and there are millions of people who have gathered in peace, and when they are disbanded in peace, what will be! Citizen's opinion and democracy are just the same as the government is trampled by the government, the anger of the young people who are desperate for the adults who do not listen to the story, the feeling that explodes, and the dangers of life, but action I want to be able to understand the courage to wake up, and I want to support the future of their drawing.

There is a survey that the parent-Chinese media [economic ung] and [CLEAR NEWS] went together." while the demonstration was sustainable, the demonstrators destroyed the legislative Congress on the 1th, so i sue this Can you agree with the way?" 214,634 people answer and agree at 8 pm last night %, don't agree but 9 %, no comment Is 10 %.

It is said that the intention of the survey of the parent-Chinese media should have been a government support, and it should have been a good idea to suppress the demonstration, but the intention is edge, and the result of most citizens supporting the demonstrators. It's been embossed.

During the collision on June 12, there was a radical action of throwing bricks in a few demonstrators, but today there was no other human attack, and the demonstration was held in peace. . The vandalism in the row of July 1th was not a person, but it was against the stuff.

As A Supplement, I think that the installation of the independent investigation committee is a fair measure for both of the violence in a series of demonstrations. With a fair third party, you should check it out, democracy is also demanding it to the government. However, the government continues to refuse the installation of the independent investigation committee. For some reason it's obvious, because government and police brutality are exposed to the light of the international society.

I'm going to investigate in the agency called the existing Deputy Council, but the general council is not legally guaranteed to summon the investigation rights and witnesses to the court, and half of the members of the council committee. More than a parent. The Police are going to investigate the police, and we have to set up the independent investigation committee, and we continue to voice the opposite of the investigation at the general council, but we continue to be rejected today. Yes.

Article: @[699908786774332:274:SOKO hé quán sù xíng]Translated