Cantonese Chinese Schools in New Jersey (NJ) 在新澤西州以粵語授課的中文學校

There are quite a number of Chinese schools in New Jersey (NJ). Many of them teach Mandarin (Putonghua) Chinese, and some of them teach Cantonese Chinese. I found that there aren't any good directories of Cantonese Chinese schools in New Jersey, so I've decided to create this directory. Hopefully some Cantonese-speaking parents in New Jersey will find it useful.

I verified every entry in this list. If you find any omissions or mistakes, please email me at leeyuiwah AT gmail DOT com and supply me an url of the website of the school. Thank you!

Name 名稱LocationWebsite
Chinese Heritage School of New Jersey 華仁中文學校Monmouth Junction, NJchsnj2000.org
Livingston Chinese School 李文斯頓中文學校Livingston, NJLivingstonChineseSchool.org
Monmouth Chinese School 孟華中文學校Marlboro, NJMonmouthChineseSchool.com
Chinese Community Center of New Jersey 華協River Edge, NJcccnj888.org

View Cantonese Chinese schools in New Jersey in a larger map

(Last verified on Nov 13, 2010)


魚翅及撐港台運動 Facebook 專頁故障最新情況 Updated Service Notice

Please scroll down for the English version.

【 2010 年十月廿六日】 由十月十六日起,因為本人 Facebook 帳戶的某些問題(詳見另文),本人的帳戶與及所管理的專頁(包括以下)被暫時停止服務。直到今天(十月廿六日),本人的帳戶終於可以重新使用,但不幸有關專頁仍未能重開。本人正在與 Facebook 繼續磋商,希望能夠重開這些專頁,但情况並不樂觀。我已作好了最壞的打算,必要時要重建這些專頁。如真的要重建之時,希望大家能夠支持。對各位造成不便,謹此致歉!

* 魚翅婚宴。人情七折 Cut gift money for shark fin banquets (two groups and a page)
* 請曾特首在施政報告中暫絕魚翅 Please say no to shark fin soup in your CE policy address
* 但願春茗無魚翅 No shark fin soup in our company banquets, please
* 「撐港台運動」專頁 SaveRTHK Campaign Community Page
* 我撐頭條新聞;要求立法保障獨立公共廣播

另外,「但願春茗無魚翅」登記網頁 (Google Form) 和查看結果網頁仍然運作正常。各位請繼續踴躍登記。

登記網頁: http://bit.ly/NoSharkFinCompanyBanquets
查看結果: http://bit.ly/ResultNoSharkFinCompanyBanquets

李銳華 謹啓

Service update about these shark-fin-soup and SaveRTHK facebook pages:

[ October 26th, 2010] Since Oct 16th, my Facebook account as well the above pages that I managed were disabled (c.f. another blog about this incident). Finally today (Oct 26th), my account was re-enabled. Unfortunately those pages were still not functioning. I have contacted Facebook hoping the problem can be resolved, but the outlook is not good. I have already been prepared for the worst and am contemplating a re-build of these pages. I hope your support will still be there should we decide to rebuild. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience incurred!

On the other hand, the registration page (Google Form) for the campaign “No shark fin soup in our company banquets, please” as well as the result page are still working properly and are not affected by the above outage. Please keep adding your company’s name to the said registration page.

Registration Page: http://bit.ly/NoSharkFinCompanyBanquets
Result Page: http://bit.ly/ResultNoSharkFinCompanyBanquets

Best Regards,

Yui-Wah (Clement) Lee


A non-conspiracy theory of my little Facebook incident

Yesterday I talked about my Facebook account was temporarily because Facebook found out the birthday information was fake (see this article).

Now after some pondering, perhaps I can provide a non-conspiracy theory to this little incident. Perhaps Facebook does not really know my real birthday. What they know is only that the birthday information is fake. This can happen if they detect the date I gave them is out-of-range (e.g. Jan 1, 1900) or non-existent (e.g. Feb 29, 1971).

Frankly speaking I forgot what date I told them.

Actually, I hope the above explanation is true. It is a very scary thought that Facebook can know my real birthday with doing any serious investigative work.

In any case, as Facebook becomes more and more useful (and hence powerful), we should be watchful for what Facebook can do (or could have done). We need check and balance in this society. If any single entity becomes too powerful, then the chance of abuse will be elevated. This is true to government, to media, to Google, to Microsoft, to the pre-1984 AT&T (before it was broken up by the US Government in 1984 by anti-trust law, if you remember that), to the US unipolar superpower, and to Facebook.

I still like Facebook. I hope it is just useful, not evil !

魚翅及撐港台運動 Facebook 專頁故障啟事 Sevice Notice

Please scroll down for the English version.

【 2010 年十月十七日】 由於本人 Facebook 帳戶的某些技術問題(請見另文)。本人管理的專頁(包括以下)被暫時停止服務。本人正在與 Facebook 進行手續,以便及早能重開這些專頁(以及本人的帳戶)。有所不便,敬請原諒。各方垂詢,感激不盡,銘記於心。同仁請繼續努力,讓明天更美好!謝謝!

  • 魚翅婚宴。人情七折 Cut gift money for shark fin banquets (two groups and a page)
  • 請曾特首在施政報告中暫絕魚翅 Please say no to shark fin soup in your CE policy address
  • 但願春茗無魚翅 No shark fin soup in our company banquets, please
  • 「撐港台運動」專頁 SaveRTHK Campaign Community Page
  • 我撐頭條新聞;要求立法保障獨立公共廣播
另外,「但願春茗無魚翅」登記網頁 (Google Form) 和查看結果網頁仍然運作正常。各位請繼續踴躍登記。

登記網頁: http://bit.ly/NoSharkFinCompanyBanquets
查看結果: http://bit.ly/ResultNoSharkFinCompanyBanquets

Service notice about these shark-fin-soup and SaveRTHK facebook pages:

[ October 17th, 2010] Due to some technical issues with my Facebook account (c.f. another blog about this incident), all facebook pages that I solely administer, including the above, are now disabled. I am now in the process of getting these pages (and my Facebook account) re-enabled.

Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience incurred. I am deeply indebted for all the kind and concerned inquires about this incident. Let's keep up our work for a better tomorrow. Thank you very much!

On the other hand, the registration page (Google Form) for the campaign "No shark fin soup in our company banquets, please" as well as the result page are still working properly and are not affected by the above outage. Please keep adding your company's name to the said registration page.

Registration Page: http://bit.ly/NoSharkFinCompanyBanquets
Result Page: http://bit.ly/ResultNoSharkFinCompanyBanquets


Facebook knows your real birthday -- even without you telling them?! (Updated)

This morning (Oct 16, 2010) I found that my facebook account was disabled. So I followed the link to see why that happened. It turns out that facebook knows the birthday that I told them was fake and asks me to provide them a real birthday (see the image below).

Indeed I provided them a fake birthday when I signed up my facebook account because I do not think they have a need to know this little piece of private information of mine. I was thinking that as long as I was not lying on my age to circumvent some age-based rules (e.g. those preventing kids from accessing pornographic material), I thought I am (morally) justified to hide my real birthday. But apparently facebook does not think so. They want to know your real birthday (not just age), and if you don't tell them, they will know it anyway?! Scary, scary!

Granted, my birthday is not top secret, and anyone who is determined enough can carry out an investigation and probably can find out the information relatively easily. Still, it is not public information, and I don't give it out easily. I think probably only my relatives and close friends, my employers, some government agencies, and some companies with whom I have some form of contractual relationship, such as my banks, know my real birthday. Also, I am not a person of such interest to facebook that they would start any special investigation on me or my birthday, so the explanation seems to point to this direction: that users' real birthday information, not voluntarily provided by users but acquired through another means, are readily available within facebook, and that through a simple match of the information in their different databases facebook knew who gave them fake information. If that is true, then it is really scary.

[Updated on Oct 17, 2010: Perhaps this little incident can be explained by a non-conspiracy theory. See this another thought of mine on this incident. ]

A fallout of this is that the several popular pages that I solely administer are now also disabled. So if you are a members of these facebook communities, I will have to apologize for the outage.

Also if some of you out there are administering some important facebook pages, I suggest you assign at least one more administrators to these pages. This is sometimes known as a "Business Continuity Plan". I actually thought about doing it, but my busy schedule kept pushing it to "tomorrow" ... until now this is too late.

Hopefully this outage is temporary. I am now going through the facebook procedures to re-enable my account. I don't know how long this is going to take. Please bear with us for the moment. If you have any questions, you can email me at leeyuiwah AT gmail DOT com

These are some of the pages that I administer:

  • 魚翅婚宴。人情七折 Cut gift money for shark fin banquets (two groups and a page)
  • 請曾特首在施政報告中暫絕魚翅 Please say no to shark fin soup in your CE policy address
  • 但願春茗無魚翅 No shark fin soup in our company banquets, please
  • 「撐港台運動」專頁 SaveRTHK Campaign Community Page
  • 我撐頭條新聞;要求立法保障獨立公共廣播

If you are on facebook or twitter, please help me spread the following message out (exactly 140 characters)

李銳華 Clement Lee's facebook a/c is temporarily disabled, so are all his pages (Shark Fin /SaveRTHK) See http://bit.ly/ClementFbAc for details



Remembering 9/11

(Image Source: NPR.org: Photographic Casualties)

(Image source: GlobalGrind.com: Stop Closing Your Eyes To The War In Iraq)

Today is 9/11 again. My heart goes to the families of the 2,977 victims of that day, AS WELL AS the families of victims of the other equally bad, if not worse, atrocity that mankind can commit -- the unnecessary Iraq War, in which 100,000 innocent civilians (source http://IraqBodyCount.org/) -- together with 4,736 US soldiers -- were killed, for no good reasons.

What is worse then terrorism? It is the indifference towards terrorism! More specifically, it is the attitude of seeing and condemning only the atrocity from "the other side" but not the atrocity from "our side". It is the attitudes of "Oh you know all politicians are like this", "Well but there is oil over there", "What can I do? History is full of these"...

Stand up, People! Prosecute the murderers and stop the atrocities from happening again!


War of Terror

In memory of September 11th ...

How should we define terrorism? Shall we say it is the violent act of an organization who has no regard of innocent human life when pursuing its political, religious, or ideological agenda ? How about Bush and Cheney's Iraq War? Shall we say it is a "War on Terror" or a "War of Terror"? One hundred thousands (100,000) innocent Iraqi civilians (source http://IraqBodyCount.org/) were killed in the Iraq War -- about 30 times more than the number of victims killed in 9/11.


On the issue of shark fin soup: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

On the issue of shark fin soup, recently three characters told us something about themselves.

Photo: Liang Chen / Global Times

The Good: A Beijing restaurant Jin Ding Xuan (北京金鼎軒酒樓 aka Golden Tripod Attic Restaurant) has taken a courageous move to stop selling shark fin soup. They not only just stop selling it, they actually made a large advocacy poster in front of their restaurant to explain their new policy and call on customers to stop eating shark fin soup. (Note 1). In other words, not only that they have done it, they have done it boldly.

The Bad: Well, at least for a few days, Citibank HK was bad. In mid July (2010) it launched a marketing campaign jointly with Maxim's restaurant using shark-fin soup as the attraction. Like similar instances before with the University of Hong Kong (HKU) and Disneyland Hong Kong, this apathy of environmental concerns caused an outcry both in Hong Kong and world wide. Thanks to the many netizens who participated in a Facebook campaign (Note 2) and mass email campaign, Citibank HK (and later Citibank Asia-Pacific too) redeemed itself within a few days. Like HKU and Disneyland Hong Kong who corrected themselves subsequently, Citbank HK heard the protest and scraped the marketing campaign. This story even made into New York Times (Note 3) and Financial Times (Note 4).

The Ugly: How about our Hong Kong Government? In June (2010), a green group Green Sense ( 環保觸覺 ) issued a questionnaire to 56 government departments, asking whether they have any internal guidelines banning shark fin soup in their business banquets. Of all the departments, only one -- Hong Kong Observatory (HKO) -- has such an internal ban. While we applaud the noble position of HKO, we must point out that Environmental Protection Department (EPD), the department who should have been a leader in this subject matter, issued a response declining to comment on whether there is, or whether there should be, any internal ban on shark fin soup. Many other departments, including the Office of Chief Executive, later cited the same response as their own. (Note 6)

This was exactly the same position of Hong Kong Government five years ago, prepared by then Secretary for the Environment, Transport, and Works, Dr. Sarah Liao, at the Legislative Council meeting on Dec 14, 2005 (Note 5).

In other words, after 5 years of public petitioning and campaigning, and several high-profile public outcries, our Government is still living in the last century. During this period, it is estimated that another 350-500 millions of sharks have been killed for their fins, of which half of them were traded through Hong Kong.

While we do not expect that Hong Kong Government can act boldly and swiftly like the Hawaii State of the US, who imposed a total ban of shark fins this July, we still hope our government can at least issue an internal ban of shark fin soup in their business banquets. If HKU and Disneyland HK and Citibank HK can do it, why can't our government do the same? Even excluding any environmental concerns, it is already questionable whether our civil servants should spend excessive public money on luxury food items such as shark fins.

From the recent farces of Tai Long Sai Wan and Hoi Ha, we can see again and again that Hong Kong Government is not demonstrating leadership in its conservation policies. It is always falling behind the public. Way behind.

Note 1: Global Times (2010-07-29) "Jaws in danger" http://bit.ly/aW1n94

Note 2: Facebook page "Citibank HK, stop the shark-fin soup promotion!" http://bit.ly/bPfC4F

Note 3: New York Times (2010-07-21) "A Shark Fin Promotion Backfires" http://bit.ly/9skzkp

Note 4: Financial Times (2010-07-22) "Citi learns the hard way: don't mess with sharks" http://bit.ly/daoXHG

Note 5: LCQ20 (2005-12-14) "Government attitudes towards not serving shark's fin dishes at banquets" http://bit.ly/akDgPe

Note 6: Mingpao (2010-06-14) (In Chinese) "無翅飲宴多部門沒指引 天文台響應 環保署含糊" http://bit.ly/bHNIZz

-- The End --








要求 Citibank 撤回美心魚翅餐推廣活動(完全版)

[An English version is listed at the end]

第一回: 抗議

香港 Citibank 信用咭 2010 年 07 月 10 日於南華早報刋登廣告(注一),以美心集團旗下酒樓的魚翅套餐推廣使用 Citibank 信用咭。

須知道以魚翅款客,既有可能導致鯊魚絶種,也鼓勵了漁民以殘忍手法活取魚鰭( 注二 ),已經不再是有責任的機關應所為(注三)。

Citigroup 曾公開作出以下聲明:「At Citi, we believe that working to promote environmental and social sustainability is good business practice。」我們認為該項美心魚翅餐推廣活動與以上述的立場明顯相悖,要求香港 Citibank 撤回有關推廣活動,同時也應響應世界自然基金會香港分會的呼籲(注四),明確承諾在企業的公務宴會上不再以魚翅款客。

我們希望香港 Citibank 能在一個月內對公眾就這件事有一個明確的交待,否則我們會考慮取消手上的(或不申請)Citibank 信用咭,以示抗議。

Facebook 専頁:http://bit.ly/cAlhqi

第二回: Citibank 回應

Citibank HK 星期一 (2010-07-19) 在其網頁上表示已經取消有關的魚翅推廣活動(Note 5)! 但有網民亦然不滿在星加坡仍然可以看到相關的推廣活動,真至星期四 (2010-07-22), Citibank Asia Pacific 補發聲明,表示也會亞太區其他地方的魚翅推廣活動也都取消 (Note 6)。 2010-08-03 在南華早報上的讀者來信中,Citigroup 的發言人重申了上述的立場。 (注七)

Citibank HK 從善如流,值得欣賞。


第三回: 媒體報導

美國紐約時報博文 (2010-07-21): A Shark Fin Promotion Backfires http://bit.ly/9skzkp

英國金融時報博文 (2010-07-22): Citi learns the hard way: don't mess with sharks http://bit.ly/daoXHG

Change.org (2010-07-23): Victory: Citibank Stops Offering Discounts on Shark Meat http://bit.ly/9Ktegx

Examiner (2010-07-23): Citibank Promotes the Consumption of Shark Fin Soup: http://exm.nr/c2DZn7


採訪聯絡 (美國東岸)1-908-463-9015

注一:有關廣告 http://bit.ly/bdWWlR

注二:39 秒鐘;一條問題 http://bit.ly/cP44SR

注三:魚翅公務宴會舉報網站 http://bit.ly/cdPlRR

注四:世界自然基金會香港分會:誰向魚翅說不? http://bit.ly/bPTwQy

Note 5: Announcement from Citibank HK http://bit.ly/dy5DVB

Note 6: Announcement from Citibank Asia Pacific http://bit.ly/cQV8bX

注七:Shark fin ads now scrapped, (Letters to the Editor, SCMP, 2010-08-03) http://bit.ly/b18NCC
English version

Chapter 1: Protest

Citibank HK made an ad on the South China Morning Post on July 10th, 2010 (Note 1), promoting the use of Citibank Credit Card through some tie-in with Maxim's Chinese Cuisine's shark-fin soup set meals.

Serving shark fin soup would endanger many shark species and encourage the cruel practice of shark finning (the cutting off of fins alive from a shark, and letting it die a slow and horrible death in the sea, see Note 2). It is no longer considered appropriate for a socially responsible organization (Note 3).

Citigroup has stated publicly that "At Citi, we believe that working to promote environmental and social sustainability is good business practice" The said promotion activity obviously contradicts Citigroup's stated position. We demand that Citibank HK should stop the promotion, and should also join with other companies, in the pledge organized by WWF-HK, to say No to shark-fin soup (Note 4).

We hope to see a public response from Citibank about this matter, otherwise we may consider cutting our own Citibank Credit Card (or pledge to not applying for it) in protest.

Facebook Page: http://bit.ly/cAlhqi

Chapter 2: Citibank's Response

On Monday (2010-07-19) Citibank HK posted an announcement on their website saying that the shark-fin promotion has been canceled (Note 5). However, it was found that information about some other shark-fin promotion activities in Singapore could still be found on the web. Netizen were not happy and shifted their focus on Citibank Singapore. Finally on Thursday (2010-07-22), Citibank Asia Pacific also announced that they will "stop (all shark-fin related promotions) in all its markets in Asia Pacific with immediate effect" (Note 6). A Citigroup spokesman reiterated the above position in a letter to the editor in SCMP on 2010-08-03 (Note 7)

It is commendable that they took this remedial action promptly.

I hope this little incident can raise awareness among the public and corporations about the importance of shark preservation. Thanks everyone for voicing out your support!

Chapter 3: Media picked up the story

- US: New York Times Blogs (2010-07-21): A Shark Fin Promotion Backfires http://bit.ly/9skzkp

- UK: Financial Times Blogs (2010-07-22): Citi learns the hard way: don't mess with sharks http://bit.ly/daoXHG

- Change.org (2010-07-23): Victory: Citibank Stops Offering Discounts on Shark Meat http://bit.ly/9Ktegx

- Examiner (2010-07-23): Citibank Promotes the Consumption of Shark Fin Soup: http://exm.nr/c2DZn7


Media Contact:(US Eastern)1-908-463-9015

Note 1: The Ad in SCMP: http://bit.ly/bdWWlR

Note 2: 39 seconds; one question: http://bit.ly/cP44SR

Note 3: Business Shark-Fin Banquet Reporting Site: http://bit.ly/cdPlRR

Note 4: WWF-HK: Companies Say No to Shark Fin http://bit.ly/aQj9io

Note 5: Announcement from Citibank HK http://bit.ly/dy5DVB

Note 6: Announcement from Citibank Asia Pacific http://bit.ly/cQV8bX

Note 7: Shark fin ads now scrapped, (Letters to the Editor, SCMP, 2010-08-03) http://bit.ly/b18NCC
-- The End --





  1. 政府要作出承諾,在曾余電視直播辯論後,政改方案仍然有被大幅修改間的可能。

  2. 在辯論和表決之間,要有一個月的時間,容許政府有時間修改方案,民間也要有時間討論修改了的方案。




如果政府拒絕答應,則這場辯論就成了明證,政府根本沒有誠意去回應 500,787 名市民通過選票在五月十六日所表達的強烈聲音「盡快落實真普選,廢除功能組別」。雖然辯論因此拉倒,但清楚映照了政府的虚偽和對民意的漠視,對下一階段的工作可能更有利。泛民也免去了被人利用。



注:請在 facebook 上按「喜歡」(Like) 支持本建議:連結

-- 完 --





相反,有 500,787 選民投票支持單一議題「盡快落實真普選,廢除功能組別」,反對政府的方案。



- 『政府宣佈以後採購不再用招標競價形式進行,改由物料供應署長與供應商關門議價。特首表示,關門議價,可以幫納稅人爭取到更優惠的價錢。要信任物料供應署長的議價能力。他還說:「信任,可以讓夢想成真。」

- 『政府同時宣佈解散廉政公署。特首說:「聽到很多市民的聲音,認為香港的公務員隊伍非常廉潔,值得信任。不需要浪費公帑對他們進行監督。」他強調:「信任,可以讓夢想成真。」』

- 『政府律師在結案陳詞時表示,雖然政府方面未能提供太多的證據,但已經是很努力的去打這場官司,希望法官大人會信任他們的誠意而判政府勝訴。他總結說:「信任,可以讓夢想成真。」』



-- 完 --

facebook 專頁:連結



原來不想作這樣的猜測,但因為大家不斷地引用 17.1% (或 579,000 人)這個數字(D),因此這個數字有其重要性。

可是,選委會對這個數字的官方立場(截至香港時間 2010 年 5 月 17 日上午 9:30 )郤只是「請注意投票人數只作臨時參考之用。」(http://bit.ly/djl2N0)。

但正式數字方面,選委會只公佈了各候選人得票數字(B)(http://bit.ly/cG6fY1),而沒有公佈廢票數字(C)。(見 http://bit.ly/9yIej0




-- 完 --

按:有興趣跟進此事的可加入(喜歡/like) facebook 專頁:連結




奇蹟也許沒有在昨天( 2010 年 5 月 16 日)出現,但我絶對無悔。有夢不是罪,無夢才可憐!

精誠所至,金石為開。昨天也許沒有奇蹟,但終有一天,會一如 1911 年 10 月 10 日(武昌起義)和 2003 年 7 月 1 日(反廿三條倉猝立法)一般,它會出現的。


這次投票的官方投票率是 17.1%(注二)。比公社兩黨預期的目標低,但請各位朋友不要氣餒。




注二:這次的公佈仍然有一疑團 -- 選委會只公佈了投票人數(A)和得票數字(B),而沒有公佈廢票數字(C)。但按理A=B+C,如選委會不確定C,又怎計得A與B?(見 http://bit.ly/9yIej0 )

-- 完 --



問:公社兩黨自訂變相公投的成功準則。一時又話 50%,一時又話 30%,是否在胡鬧?









有朋友對我說,不贊成以辭職引發公投,厭惡那班人,不想與這事情扯上任何關係,不會在 5 月 16 日投票。以下是我對他說的一番話。

如果您厭惡這班人,那您更加應該去投票 -- 去投白票,或投公投五子的對手而把他們五人拉下台。








相反,若有人急於「報仇」,私下把犯人槍殺了,反而為社會留下一個大懸案 -- 犯人既沒有經過相認程序(due process) 來認明有罪。則無人敢權威的說他罪有應得 -- 說不定他是被冤枉的呢?




-- 完 --







無法如何,在上述三種(或前兩種)情况下,在現場要堅拒進食魚翅湯。最好還帶有彩色圖片,甚至 laptop 視頻,向同席的人解釋食魚翅的兩大問題:

1。 導致鯊魚絶種,影響生態平衡;
2。 活取魚鰭極殘忍,不能鼓勵。



-- 完 --


蘋果日報 (2010-03-06):小鯨鯊慘被生劏魚鰭 菲島潛水睹悲劇 浸大女助理教授落淚 網站 圖片 PDF 視頻 

39 秒鐘;一條問題 連結

紀錄短片:《魚翅》 (13 min 25 sec): 連結

「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」運動 (2010-03-29):連結

-- 完 --







-- 完 --







-- 完 --


遊行 vs 投票
















得知您們將會在 2010 年 5 月 30 日 主辦活動『魚翅撈飯●永利街●赤柱 一天遊』



魚翅公務宴會舉報網站 http://bit.ly/9ITPC6

而 facebook 上亦已有群組發起反對 http://bit.ly/a3VEV6


李銳華 Clement
2010 年 5 月 2 日

相關網頁Related links:

- 「39 秒鐘;一條問題」 "39 seconds; one question" http://bit.ly/cP44SR
- 「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」"Cut gift money for shark fin banquets" http://bit.ly/d92vUC
- 「世界自然基金會香港分會。企業承諾拒絶食用魚翅」 WWF HK: Corporates pledge to stop serving shark fin soup http://bit.ly/aFijKB






正所謂不打不相識。本人現有一事相求 -- 不知李先生與鄭議員是否有興趣推動大埔區議會承諾不在公務宴會上使用魚翅?更理想的是大埔區議員全體議員及其議員辦事處也作出同樣的承諾。若能成功,誠一美事也!


- 「世界自然基金會香港分會。企業承諾拒絶食用魚翅」 WWF HK: Corporates pledge to stop serving shark fin soup http://bit.ly/aFijKB


李銳華 Clement

P.S. 我亦已經把「魚翅公務宴會舉報網站」上的資料更新了。請見 http://bit.ly/aPLeY9





地址: 大埔太和邨愛和樓303室
電話:6227 2090 / 2712 9712
傳真:2696 9088
電郵/MSN: OurTP@yahoo.com.hk
網址: http://www.facebook.com/OurTP

-- 完 --


在「環保觸覺」「護鯊校園」記者招待會上的發言 (2010-05-02)

[香港: 2010-05-02 14:00 本文網址: http://bit.ly/b2ydFH







上月( 2010 年 4 月 27 日 )美國夏威夷州政府參眾兩院以大比數剛通過 SB 2169 法案,全面禁止買賣、分發或擁有鯊魚鰭(魚翅)。州長會在 45 天內簽署法案,令法律正式生效。(注一、注二)

這次通過的法案,推動的是兩位夏威夷著名華人,前夏威夷州州長夫人 Mrs. Vicky Cayetano(卡耶塔諾夫人) 及州參議員 Senator Clayton Hee (克萊頓.許)。他們以華人後裔的身份,推動法案,使夏威夷公眾釋除了疑慮--知道禁絶魚翅,並不表示對中國人及中國文化的不尊重,因為正如 Mrs. Cayetano 所言:「食翅始於明朝,是皇帝想吃些較難吃到的食物。現代人食翅只是基於炫耀心理,並非中國傳統。」這次經驗,再一次說明,由於魚翅的最大消費民族是華人,解鈴還需繋鈴人,華人(包括香港人)有更大的責任去解决濫用魚翅的問題。

(順帶一提,如香港傳媒有意採訪 Mrs. Vicky Cayetano 及 Senator Clayton Hee ,本人願意略盡棉力,為大家穿針引線。請與會後以電郵與本人聯絡 (leeyuiwah AT yahoo DOT com))


最新支持者數字(香港時間 2010-04-29 21:15):共 18,270 人 (注三)

媒體報導有約至少 25 條(包括電視台、電台、網台、報章、雜誌),全部羅列了在以下網頁(注四)


另外,本人剛成立了一個「魚翅公務宴會舉報網站」,呼籲網民舉報仍在用魚翅款客的公務宴會。請到訪 http://bit.ly/aPLeY9 了解詳情。(注五)


「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」運動的發起人 李銳華

傳媒查詢: leeyuiwah AT hknet DOT com 電話:+1-908-463-9015 (美國東岸)


注一: Hawaii Legislature passes bill banning shark fishing for their fins, Washington Examiner / Associated Press, 2010-04-27 http://bit.ly/aTuE3M

注二: Hawaii State Senate, SB 2169, A Bill for an act - Relating to Shark Fins The version of 2010-04-21: PDF File http://bit.ly/bH7nQo

注三: 「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」最新支持者數字在以下網站發佈 http://bit.ly/SharkFinCampaignNumbers

注四: 媒體報導有約至少 25 條(包括電視台、電台、網台、報章、雜誌),全部羅列了在以下網頁:「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」


注五:「魚翅公務宴會舉報網站」呼籲網民舉報仍在用魚翅款客的公務宴會。 http://bit.ly/aPLeY9

-- 完 --









516 齊投票

516 齊投票 
真普選 有必要
功能組 應廢除
願中華 民主耀

-- 李銳華










香港《文匯報》於2010 年 4 月 19 日發表社評《圍攻式的城市論壇應否繼續?》,茲簡評如下。


香港親共的「左派」陣營,在 1967 年發動暴動,導致 51 人死亡,超過 800 人受傷。當年遍地「菠蘿」(土製炸彈、手榴彈)的景像,並不會因為其領導人楊光,在回歸後神奇地獲得大紫荆勳章,而會在香港人的集體回憶中磨滅的。而香港人,其中特別包括有份發動這場暴動的人及其傳人,理應深切了解,是甚麼的土壤才會引起這樣的動亂──就是高壓的統治。沒有苛政在先,再喪心病狂的暴徒,也不可能搞起一場動亂。這也是為何殖民地港英政府其後改行較開放及改良的社會政策的原因,而香港也是在汲取了血的教訓後,才慢慢地發展成一個開放型的國際大都會。



── 完──

按:有用 facebook 的讀者可 like ( 喜歡 ) 此 community page: http://bit.ly/9JMBTQ


An open letter to the Hawaii State Legislature

Hawaii State Legislature
State Capitol Building
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Re: S.B. No. 2169, Relating to Shark Fins

Dear Members of the Hawaii State Legislature,

I grew up in Hong Kong and speak Chinese as my mother tongue. I would like to testify that shark fin soup, while a common dish served in some formal banquets, does not necessarily equate to the Chinese culture and tradition. In fact, in China we also treasure the virtue of frugality, and we respect life, food, and nature. And the cruel practice of shark finning (cutting fins off a shark alive and then throwing the shark back to the ocean letting it die a horrible death) is clearly at odds with our traditional values.

In Hong Kong the public are getting more and more aware of the ugly truth behind shark fin soup, and the distaste against it is simply getting stronger and stronger day by day.

Recently I started a local campaign in Hong Kong encouraging banquet goers to cut back their "gift money" to the hosts -- by 30% -- if shark fin soup is served in the banquet. The idea is that banquet goers are the true (or major) financiers of each banquet, and they should be empowered to say "no" to shark fin soup when the host may still be saying "yes". The campaign has been receiving overwhelming support. I started the campaign as a facebook group (and later a community page) [1]. Within ~15 days, and simply by word of mouth (and latter some media coverage [2] [3]) the facebook community has grown to 15,000+ members [4].

This shows that there is a very strong sentiment against shark finning -- even in Hong Kong the world center of shark fin trade.

I would like to applaud recent efforts of the Hawaiian Legislature to pass a bill to protect sharks by prohibiting the possession, sale, and trade of shark fins. I think they demonstrate to the world that Hawaii is a leader in this cause. Back to my home town of Hong Kong, I hope these efforts will set up positive examples for Hong Kong to follow. I personally have been lobbying my friends in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong to take up the issue and enact similar bills in Hong Kong.

Best Regards,

Yui-Wah (Clement) Lee 李銳華
Creator of a Hong Kong campaign
"Cut gift money for shark fin banquet"

[1] Facebook community page: "Cut gift money for shark fin banquets" http://bit.ly/9CHTcF

[2] The Standard (Hong Kong) Apr 7, 2010 "Shark's fin campaign hits newlyweds where it hurts" http://bit.ly/adsrho

[3] CNN Go (Asia) Apr 7, 2010 "Very hot Facebook group: 'Cut gift money for shark fin banquets'" http://bit.ly/aTzUDO

[4] Latest supporter numbers, "Cut gift money for shark fin banquets" (running update) http://bit.ly/apViGr


39 秒鐘;一條問題

只想請各位花39 秒鐘觀看一下以下片段:

Please spend 39 seconds and watch the following video:

(YouTube - Shark finning in Costa Rica http://bit.ly/aLo3uh




And then think about this question:

"Can I do something about this?"


-- 完 --




前幾天 (2010-04-06) 上了香港電台的節目《千禧年代》接受訪問 (訪問在 約 8:40 - 9:00 am 之間進行)。節目中主持人之一周融先生問我「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」在實際層面可以怎樣操作。我想,視乎不同人之間的人際關係,是有很多種不同的操作方法的吧?!以下謹舉兩個例子,供大家參考。


阿沙: 阿寶,我下個月結婚啦。你一定要嚟飲一杯呀!

阿寶: 嘩!又嚟一粒「粉紅色炸彈」!不過見係你,無計啦。幾號先?。。。

阿沙: 十號。。。

阿寶: 話時話啦。我支持環保o架,你會唔會支持環保搞個「無翅婚宴」先?

阿沙: 我早知你會講呢樣架嘞。「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」呀嘛。。。

例二: 新人(雯雯和明)與長輩

雯雯: 老爺奶奶,我地擺酒不如唔好落魚翅咯。

長輩: 點得呀?!無魚翅會失禮人客架。。。

明:  唔係呀,阿爸阿媽。宜家有魚翅先至會失禮人呀。您哋有冇聽過「魚翅婚宴。人情七折」。好多人都唔鍾意菜單上有魚翅,重話要人情打折添呀!

長輩: 。。。

雯雯: 係呀。宜家好多鯊魚俾我地食到就嚟絶種啦。您哋都唔想第日要同啲孫講,話海洋裏已經冇哂鯊魚,係因為以前我哋將佢哋食哂。

長輩: 。。。

明:  而且,因為鯊魚淨係魚翅值錢,啲漁民好多時用啲好殘忍嘅手法。例如將鯊魚鰭監生切落嚟,再將條鯊魚生勾勾推番落海,由佢自生自滅。報紙都有賣啦。。。。您唔信,我播條您哋睇嘞。。。呢個同我地中國人講究節儉嘅美德有相違背噃。。。

長輩: 好啦,好啦。你哋啲後生話事啦!


雯雯: 老爺奶奶,我哋請柬會寫明係「無翅婚宴」,到時係宴會上再揾司儀解釋,一定會做得好好睇睇嘅。

長輩: 我哋都希望第時個孫唔會以為鯊魚只係傳說中的動物。。。

-- 完 --



0。參加「魚翅婚宴。七折人情」facebook 群組。向社會表明,不是「宴會上無魚翅會失禮人客」;相反,是「宴會上有魚翅才會失禮人客」。

1。寄宣傳單張給新人。名單可以如婚紗店般以婚姻注册處的公佈編取。傳單以「魚翅背後的真相」和「魚翅婚宴。七折人情」為主題(見下列圖片及 YouTube 片段)。在主人家訂菜式前發揮影響力。

2。請各位注意身邊的大機構,在公務宴會上(春茗,週年宴會等)有沒有停用魚翅作菜式。如無停用的話,我們用 Google Doc 在網上羅列出來。這樣可以對各機構主其事者做成壓力。(按:有多間大機構如香港大學﹑恒生銀行等已承諾公務宴上不會用魚翅 ) 再按: 此議已實現,請訪問 魚翅公務宴會舉報網站

3。 派人向飲食業游說,籌組「飲食業護鯊立場書」,承諾在人客訂宴會菜單時,會主動提議魚翅替代品,供客人選擇(注意,不是承諾完全停用魚翅--在這階段這仍是過份前衛了一些)。 按: 此議已經由 WWF-HK 實現。見 連結

4。 向立法會議員及政府游說,開始徵收魚翅稅,由 10% 起,分五年提高至 200%,五年後完全禁止魚翅進口。

5。 向中華廚藝學院或蘇絲黄等游說,舉辦「無翅靚湯料理鐵人大賽」,推廣魚翅替代品。

如實行的話,將要有朋友幫忙。有興趣的朋友可與我聯絡。 Email: leeyuiwah AT hknet DOT com



[An English version follows. ]



既然如此,何不釜底抽薪?因此小苐成立了一個 facebook 群組,倡議大家表明,如囍宴菜單上有魚翅這道菜,我們會把「人情」打七折,餘款捐給環保團體。

facebook 專頁 (開放加入)
facebook 群組 B (停止新會員加入)
facebook 群組 A (停止新會員加入)





(按:頁首的照片請見香港《蘋果日報》2010 年 3 月 6 日報導《小鯨鯊慘被生劏魚鰭 菲島潛水睹悲劇 浸大女助理教授落淚》。見者心酸。)

-- 完 -- 

English Version

Cut Gift Money for Shark Fin Banquet

As banquet goers, traditionally we could not affect the hosts on their menu choices -- even if they decided to serve shark fin soup, which has dire environmental consequences for the sharks and ourselves.

At the same time, we all understand we the banquet goers are the true financiers of the banquets -- we pay for our own meals in the name of "gift money" in the red envelops.

As such, if we concern about our environment, why don't we just "follow the money" and make a change at the source ?! I suggest that we pledge to cut our gift money -- by 30% -- if we know in advance that shark fin soup will be served in the banquets. We will also pledge to donate the balance to organizations that are promoting the well being of our environment.

Facebook Community Page (Open)
Facebook Group B (Stop adding)
Facebook Group A (Stop adding)
Online Petition (Open)

I believe if there are more people making the same pledge, we can signal our distaste of shark fin soup to all the banquet organizers, and slowly we will turn the tide on the problem of excessive shark finning.

Let's work together -- for ourselves and for our future generations. Together Yes We Can !

Please invite your friends to participate.

(Note: the picture was from a news report from Apple Daily of Mar 6, 2010 . It serves as a testament on the barbaric side of the shark finning industry.)

-- The End --

採訪聯絡 (美國東岸)1-908-463-9015
Media Contact:(US Eastern)1-908-463-9015

支持者數字 Supporter Numbers:滾動式報告 Running Updates

有關的傳媒報導與評論 (順時序排列): Media Coverage and Comments (chronological order)

蘋果日報頭條 (2010-04-06) PDF 檔案:


頭條:拯救鯊魚 網民起義--抵制婚宴食翅人情做七折



香港電台:千禧年代 (2010-04-06) 論題三: 群組倡"魚翅婚宴。人情七折" (約於節目 00:40:00-01:00:00)

The Standard (2010-04-07) Shark's fin campaign hits newlyweds where it hurts

CNN Go (2010-04-07) Very hot Facebook group: 'Cut gift money for shark fin banquets'

(UK) The Independent (2010-04-08) "Hong Kong gets behind shark fin Facebook campaign": link

蘋果日報 (2010-04-08) PDF 檔案:
花膠燕窩代替,大方得體又保育, 80 後新人響應無翅酒席

881903.com: 親切的金子 (2010-04-08): 魚翅婚宴。人情做足

RTHK's The Pulse (TV program) (2010-04-09) Against Shark Finning

蘋果日報專欄 (2010-04-10) 林夕:魚翅的祝福 (PDF 檔案)

香港電台:頭條新聞(電視節目) (2010-04-10):唯獨你是不可取替? (接:於檔案中約 04:08 開始)

香港電台:全民格價(2010-04-12):綠色消費:魚翅婚宴、新郎哥 Kenny、 WWF 潘婉堯

都市日報: (2010-04-14):余若薇 綠色公民 婚宴,七折人情

健康生活台(香港有線電視 27 台) (2010-04-14):今日:魚翅婚宴。人情七折

CSR Asia (2010-04-14): No shark fin soup in the menu please!

Green Radio 青台:動物無家處處家 (2010-04-15): 魚翅婚宴。人情七折

HK Magazine (2010-04-16): Feature: Clement Lee

明報 (2010-04-18):張堅庭:星級爸爸﹕唔該,我要碗仿翅

無線電視翡翠台 2010-04-18 晚間新聞 (6:30 pm and 11:30 pm) 食魚翅會吸收大量重金屬 (Youtube 重温)

蘋果日報 (2010-04-22) 魚翅商登廣告反擊罷吃行動
團體斥短視 促市民改食環保海鮮: 蘋果網站 | PDF 檔案

香港電台:「自由風自由 Phone 」 (2010-04-23):話題三:魚翅行商會登廣告反擊罷吃行動

東方日報 (2010-04-27):口下留情 網站 | 圖像 (JPG)

東方日報 ON.TV(2010-04-28): 夏威夷開先例禁絶魚翅冀阻殘殺鯊魚


蘋果日報 (2010-05-03):「不要魚翅」擴展至學校餐宴:網站 | PDF

都市日報 (2010-05-03) : 無翅母親節:網站

明報 (2010-05-06):12食肆推無翅宴菜式 每席捐100元保育鯊魚:連結

香港寛頻 (2010-05-07) :酒褸無翅宴 響應減捕鯊:視頻

星島日報:副刊 (2010-05-13):護鯊逼切 —— 勿當「翅」客:連結

鳳凰衛視 (2010-05-15):鯊魚遭殘殺,港人網上發起護鯊行動:視頻

蘋果日報 (2010-05-31):新世代反傳統 食魚翅變老套:蘋果網頁 | 轉載網頁

-- 完 --



昨天發表了《給「大專 2012 」五位同學的一封公開信》之後,收到一些朋友的回應,僅此作出一些補充。

首先,我提議的「大專 2012 」五位同學「以代理人身位,反對公投議題」,並不是要求他們昧着良心,假扮反對公投。相反,我是提議他們開誠佈公,講明自己是支持香港民主有更大發展,但是在選舉中是作為程序上的一個「代理人」並且在政綱上承諾會投票反對公投議題 (pledge to vote against the ballot question):「盡快落實雙普選、取消功組別。」


這種做法,在世界上很常見。最多人認識的,相信是美國總統選舉中的「選舉人」(Elector)制度。這些在選舉中勝出的選舉人,雖然各自有自己心儀的總統候選人,但在最後投票選總統時,都會用「勝者囊括」 winner-takes-all 的做法,把全州的選舉人票綑綁在一起,全部投給在州中得票較多的總統候選人。




最後,在技術細節上,我建議「大專 2012 」的五位同學,可以在提名截止的最後一日的最後一刻,在肯定建制派人不派人參選後,才遞表參選。這樣,他們可以向選民清楚解釋,他們是在為了維護反對公投議題的市民的投票權,才無奈出戰的。事實上,建制派派人參選,是較理想的做法。但他們害怕民主,把反對公投議題的市民的權利也剥奪了(這樣才較有利於他們任意地解讀民意),我們也拿他們沒辦法。只可憐「民主」哪兩字還掛在他們政黨的招牌上,任意遭他們蹂躪。



給「大專 2012 」五位同學的一封公開信

報載你們五人決定參與 5 月 16 日的補選,我雖不認識你們之中的任何一位,但我非常欣賞你們的承担和勇氣,一定會為你們打氣!




1 投票人(選民)的身份確認和核實,有一定的程序,不容人質疑。

2 投票行為的確在某日發生,而點票過程和結果的判定,也不容任何合理的懷疑。

3 投票議題的支持者和反對者(即正、反相方)都有同等的權利,不受干擾,可以在當天投票。

如今,感謝「公、社兩黨」「辭職五子」的犧牲,上述三個條件的前兩項,應在 5 月 16 日可以得到實現。

但第三項,本來應該是會自動出現的,郤因「建制派」的策略下(也有一說是北京授意)-- 拒絕派人參選 -- 而至今仍無法成立。建制派的目的就是要阻止這次「變相公投」能有真正的權威性。




有說,「作為代理人,反對公投的議題」的做法,會在選民間做成混亂。我則認為以香港的教育水平和資訊發達的程度,香港應是全世界最有條件以民主制度解决社會紛争的社會之一(而美國在二百多年前,即我前清朝,雍正﹑乾隆年間己經實行民主)。我們要對香港人有信心。由今天到 5 月 16 日,尚有兩個月,我們必定可以向市民解釋清楚。



-- 完 --


轉載:John Li: 敢笑學子不丈夫

原載自:(facebook 內)http://bit.ly/beXqrn

(按:筆者較傾向公投 B 隊以公投議題「反方」為政綱參選,賦予支持政府方案的市民投票權,也提高公投的科學性和嚴肅性。見《支持政府方案的市民的權利》 。但無論如何,筆者欣賞大專五子的承担和勇氣,為他們打氣!)

由多間大學學生籌組的 “大專2012”宣佈投身公投,議題傾向公、民兩黨候選人相同。

同路人參選公投,既可一洗兩黨 “獨腳戲”、 “鬧劇”之名,印證公投殊非少數人之一廂情願,亦可有助推高投票率:支持公、社五子者為免五子選舉下馬,必然踴躍﹔聲稱支持議題卻不滿五子的一眾,亦再無 “因人廢票”的理由,可藉支持大學生代表,表達訴求。公投事關量化、確立及申張民意,積蓄公民力量,個別人士的去留,相對次要。倘若雙方確認議題一致,則不論選民投票予何方,都可一律視作對公投議題的支持,結果依然清晰分明。


土共以言論中傷抵毁公、社兩黨,港人一向視之等閒,反響寥寥﹔但若然土共或京官敢以同樣狠辣的言辭攻擊大專參選人,又或怒屈他們simple、naïve 受人蒙閉,定必能引起社會的廣大迴響,屆時同仇敵愾,說不定能推公投更上一層樓。筆者當真期待中共見狀氣急敗壞,一如六四當年狠下四二六社論,令港人認清中央的嘴面,堅定爭取真普選的決心。





(按:前美國國務卿,雙手沾滿鮮血的戰爭販子 Condoleezza Rice 3 月 19 日到中大以傑出講座名義演講,)


1. If someone tells a lie, knowing that people will die because of that lie. And their deaths are not justified (i.e. absence of lawful justification such as self-defense). Do you think there is a case to prosecute this person for murder in a criminal court?

2. This someone are Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and yourself. Do you know why as of this time there have not been any attempts to prosecute you and company in court?

3. If you would not be punished for your crime, how can we prevent future crimes of a similar kind to happen again ?

4. Do you think the crimes that you committed should repeat in history ?


Making a statement with your WiFi router: Seven-year anniversary of the Iraq War

In commemoration of the senseless killing of innocent people (US and
Coalition Military: 4,700+; Iraq Civilians: 95,606+) that started seven
years ago (Mar 20, 2003). Please hold the warmongers accountable. If we do not punish the criminals, the crimes will repeat.

Sources of casualties numbers:














Now I have an English version ...

Rally after rally, can they get things done?
How about -- we've a ref-er-end-um ?!
The future of HK's in your hands,
Use it or lose it, my dear friends.


政府其實可以考慮徵收「魚翅稅」,由 10% 起,逐年遞增至 150%, 十五年後完全禁止進口魚翅。這樣可讓業界和市民逐漸適應。




98:  葉公好龍
99:  孔融讓梨
100: 陶侃搬磚
101: 振聰爭產




以下為 Wikipedia 對該段歷史的描述.


公投倡議書(原刊於紐約時報 Oct 16, 1894)


公投結果(原刊於紐約時報 Dec 15, 1894)



紐約居民 116 年前已經可以公投决定自己的命運; 今天的香港,肯定比當時的紐約更先進,市民的教育程度更高,資訊更加流通。香港人將會有機會進行變相公投了,您會珍惜這個機會嗎?




── 李銳華




在中國,資訊的自由流通,被政府視之為洪水猛獸,必須嚴加控制。中國政府花了很大的氣力,建立中國的互聨網防火萬里長城,網民要瀏覽境外的網站,即使不是甚麼對中國有敵意的機構,而只是主流媒體如BBC、香港明報、香港電台、甚至只是Web 2.0 的群眾「聚腳地」如 facebook , Twitter, YouTube,網民也要先看了長官的意志,得了防火長城的批准,才有可能如願。香港是不是也要變成這樣?





  1. (就第 2.7 段的回應)香港公共廣播機構的公共目的,應包括「以不偏不倚的專業新聞角度,監察社會上有權有勢的不同力量,包括政府裡的行政、立法、司法三個機關和社會上的政黨、大商家和大財團等。」
  2. (就第 1.3 段的回應)如上所述,香港的公共廣播機構的監察對象,也包括了香港政府之中的行政機關。所以,機構不應聽令於行政機關,更加不應是行政機關下的一個政府部門。
  3. (就第 1.3 段的回應)香港電台雖然目前是一個政府部門,但長期以來秉承了西方資本主義民主國家(尤其是英國 BBC )的公共廣播傳統,加上得一紙架構協議的微弱保護,勉強算是一個文化上(而不是財政上,也不是制度上)的公共廣播機構。公信力高,節目得到香港市民欣賞和信任。故此,香港將來的法定獨立公共廣播機構,最適宜由香港電台轉型而成。
  4. (就第 3.16 段的回應)筆者認為建議中的顧問委員會的,其成員由行政長官委任,其客觀效果是會提供了方便,讓行政機關得以干預公共廣播機構的新聞編輯自主,這將會有損於社會公益。筆者反對成立。
  5. (就第 4.5 段的回應)如前所述,香港的公共廣播機構的監察對象,也包括了香港政府之中的行政機關。因此,兩者之間應該有一道防火牆,而不是一扇紙門窗。建議中的約章,威信不高,效力微弱。筆者建議,公共廣播機構必須嚴肅地立法成立,機構在運作上不單有獨立穩定的財政來源,也要向一個以民主方式產生的(而非由行政長官委任的)董事會負責,以體現對公眾的問責。這樣才能發揮最大的社會效益。


── 完 ──

提交日期:2010 年 1 月 4 日