美東時間2020年5月4日早上，美國國家安全副顧問Matt Pottinger（中文名博明）在維珍尼亞大學米勒中心用中文發表演說，他認為，百年前的「五四」運動激勵了中國人民對現代化及民主的探索，但「五四」運動精神的傳承卻遭到中共的長期壓制和審查，其標誌在於中共不斷對講真話的人進行打壓。儘管如此，而直到今天，「五四」精神的傳承依然存在於有公民意識的中國公民，其表現在於他們敢於面對中共的強權，做出的大大小小的勇敢行為。中國要甚麼樣的政府，世界將等待中國人民最終提供的答案。
博明曾經在美國海軍陸戰隊服役，後退役做新聞記者。
博明曾經是路透社記者，後來轉華爾街日報，工作到2005年。他主要跟蹤報道中國民生，他因報道了包括2003年中國SARS瘟疫及2004年的印度洋地震和海嘯，被普立茲獎提名。他在中國擔任記者長達7年時間。由於在北京採訪大陸訪民，揭露中共政府腐敗，他曾經被中共國安暴力襲擊。
美國國家安全副顧問Matt Pottinger（博明）的演說，中英文全文如下：
大家，早安。我是 Matt Pottinger，副國家安全顧問，在白宮與您講話。我帶來我的上司，美國第四十五任總統 Donald J. Trump 向大家的熱情致意。
今天我們在線聚集了幾千個來自不同的地區的人，因為傳染病大流行使我們沒有辦法相聚。 但通過因特網的奇蹟，我們聚集的規模反而更大。作為美國人、作為中國人、作為人類大家庭的成員、我們大家都各盡所能，發揮著從「宏大」到「小巧」的創造力，克服困難，保護社區。
人類創造力的「宏大」包括利用生物技術和數據分析來開發治療方法和疫苗。同時，創造力的「小巧」 包括生活中的細微之處，比如，待在家裏學習相互剪剪頭髮。我的妻子是個有經驗的病毒學家，她今天也在，不過從我的頭，您可能發現作為家庭理髮師，她還是個新手。
這是我第二次有幸在維珍尼亞大學米勒中心與聽眾交談。 約十年前，在海軍陸戰隊服役後，我應邀在米勒中心發言，內容是我從兵役中學到的知識，還有軍隊與公民的關係。從那以後，我始終記得米勒中心主任 Jerry Baliles 的熱情和睿智，但他不幸在去年 10 月去世。他曾為維珍尼亞和我們國家的公共利益，而服務終生。 我們感謝像 Jerry 這樣的人。
今天，我受 Harry Harding（何漢理）教授和林夏如（Shirley Lin）教授的邀請，同大家分享關於美中關係的一些想法。 林教授告訴我，這次活動恰好是在 「五四」一百零一周年之際。我知道，這是個很好的切入點來展開從美國的視角討論關於中國的過去和現在。1919 年的「五四」，一次大戰結束，北京數千大學生聚集在天安門廣場，抗議中國在巴黎和會上受到的不公平待遇。 西方國家為了安撫日本帝國，將德國在山東半島 「權益」轉讓日本。
遊行到天安門的學生高喊：「還我山東！」 「拒簽《凡爾賽條約》！」等口號，警察強力驅散示威人士。正如政府關閉和平表達的途徑後經常會發生的那樣，一些學生訴諸暴力，抗議升級。 意識到民怨沸騰，中國政府拒絕簽署《凡爾賽條約》。
三年以後，在美國的幫助和調停下，1922 年在華盛頓海軍會議達成協議，中國收回了山東。然而，一百零一年前的今天，學生們發起的運動，意義遠遠超越了對不平等條約的民族主義的憤慨。它激勵了中國人民對現代化的探索。 正如 John Pomfret（潘文）所描述的美中關係歷史中提到，「五四」運動在於「徹底改變了中國的政治，社會和文化」。「賽先生」和「德先生」是那次中國現代化運動的口號。 有人稱運動為「中國的啟蒙運動」。
Vera Schwarcz（舒衡哲）教授以此為題目，寫了本關於「五四」的很有見地的書。 實際上，關於「五四」有很多極好的研究。 今天至少有兩位著名的當代中國歷史學家應邀參加會議：牛津大學的 Rana Mitter 和維珍尼亞大學的 John Israel。探討「五四」的歷史和意義，我建議請教這些專家。
現在我想花幾分鐘，來回顧幾個張揚了「五四」精神的中國人。很自然，胡適是「五四」時代最有影響力的領導人之一：此前，他已經是個為中國現代化而努力的重要思想家。出生在安徽省的胡適，同魯迅和許多成名作家一樣，當時到國外留過學。在康奈爾大學他從學農業，轉向學習哲學。胡適曾在美國教育家 John Dewey 的指導下在哥倫比亞大學學習。
胡適貢獻給中國人最偉大的禮物是語言。之前，中國的書面語言「文言文」幾個世紀以來基本上沒有變化。許多研究證明，文言文與白話的距離，不亞於拉丁文同現代意大利語。書面語言的艱深，在統治者和被統治者之間設置了鴻溝——這是問題的關鍵。 文言文，還有識字本身主要由少數政治精英和讀書人掌握，他們最大的願望是「中舉」，讀書不是為了普羅大眾。
與此相反，胡適認為文字應該反映人民的聲音，而不只是記錄先賢。「是甚麼時代的人,說甚麼時代的話!」 他推廣白話文，確信文字要普及。他對中文語言的發展起了關鍵作用。 事後看來，胡適推廣白話文的意義是如此之明顯，以至於很容易忘記，這在當時是革命性的想法，曾引起過極大的爭議。
北京大學的儒家學者和西方文學教授辜鴻銘，嘲笑掃盲。 他在 1919 年 8 月寫道：「想想四萬萬人，九成識字，結果是甚麼。 想一想，在北京，苦力、馬伕、司機、剃頭匠、店小二、小商販、獵人、懶漢，流浪漢都有文化，同大學生一樣，都想參與政治，我們的美妙處境會怎樣呢？」
這種精英沙文主義一直阻礙了「五四」所擁護的民主理想。 胡適運用他所推廣的白話，巧妙地反駁了反對全民社會契約的論點。 胡適說：「民主的唯一途徑就是民主」政府是一門手藝，需要實踐。 胡適根本不在乎精英主義。
但「五四」運動的領軍人經常受到各方指責，政府官員或禦用文人曾經指責，「五四」運動偏袒西方，中國氣息不夠，甚至不愛國。
但學者張彭春的生平事跡，駁斥了「五四」不夠「中國化」的觀點。同樣是『五四』一代，像好友胡適一樣，張彭春拿到獎學金，到美國留學。出於對戲劇的愛好，他第一個把「花木蘭」改變成為舞台劇。他把西方話劇介紹到兄長資助的南開大學；再把名旦梅蘭芳
邀請到美國演出西化的京劇。中國的傳統道德修養和嚴格的教育理念中，張彭春看到了可以與西方思想相結合而形成新事物的優勢。
這最終彰顯了張彭春的最高成就：對《世界人權宣言》的決定性貢獻。 這份宣言是第二次世界大戰後由羅斯福夫人（Eleanor Roosevelt）主持的國際專家小組起草的。代表中國的資深外交官張彭春是該小組的成員。 《宣言》的目的是通過道義上的要求，使政府尊重基本人權來防止專制和戰爭。1948 年宣言中規定的人權包括生命、自由、安全、不被奴役或遭受酷刑、宗教自由以及思想自由。
John Pomfret 曾寫道：「把西方的個人主義和中國的集體主義結合起來，」 張彭春促成了一份所有國家適用的普世宣言。張彭春認為，《人權宣言》不僅僅是關於個人權利，也同個人對社會的義務有關。
張彭春的傳記作家，斯德哥爾摩大學的 Hans Ingvar Roth 強調了他對《世界人權宣言》的貢獻，他說：「如今宣言中最有意義的所有方面，比如宣言的普世性、宗教中立性、對個人基本需求和尊嚴的強調，張彭春都有關鍵貢獻。」
《宣言》在聯合國通過後的短短幾年，對中國缺乏民主感到沮喪，張彭春辭去了外交官職務。不難發現，張彭春對政府缺乏民主的判斷並不來自於古希臘哲學，而是中國傳統思想中對領導的品德要求。張彭春和胡適都知道「中國人不適和民主」 不過是一派胡言，是最不愛國的論調，今天的台灣就是鮮活的證據。
那麼，如今中國「五四」精神在哪裏呢？ 在我看來，現在「五四」的繼承人，就是有公民意識的中國公民，其表現在於他們做出的大大小小的勇敢行為。李文亮醫生就是這樣的人。 李醫生並不是尋求拯救中國的公共知識份子，是個眼科醫生，年輕的父親。他先是做出了小小的勇敢行動，然後才是更大的英勇舉措。 十二月下旬，他最初是通過微信向幾名醫學院同學傳遞警告，說武漢醫院發現嚴重的冠狀病毒病例，敦促朋友們保護自己和家人。
他的警示，沒想到，在網上被廣為傳播，李醫生感到不安。不安是有充份理由的。 醫院主管迅速告誡他，不要透露冠狀病毒病例的消息。 然後，李醫生，因「在互聯網上發表虛假評論」，受到警察的「訓誡」，被迫簽字承認「造謠」，被威脅訴訟。如果有人懷疑，這只是地方警察的過激行為，那麼官方動用中央電視台對李醫生所謂「謠傳」大肆宣傳，會消除任何疑問。
然後，李醫生做了一件大膽的英勇舉措。 他在社交媒體上發表了自己在派出所的遭遇，附上了警察的警告信。全世界都密切關注。 那時李醫生已經感染了冠狀病毒。他在二月七日的去世使全世界人民感覺像失去了親人一樣。李醫生告訴記者：「我認為，健康的社會，應該有多個聲音，我不讚成公權力的過度幹預。」 李醫生使用的是胡適的「大白話」。
在今天的中國, 見記者， 或當記者都需要勇氣。如今在中國，連找到國內外的調查記者都難上加難。一些試圖揭露武漢疫情的公民記者失蹤了，包括陳秋實、方斌和李澤華。
最近幾個月，被驅逐出境的外國記者人數超過了幾十年中被蘇聯驅逐出境的人數。 李文亮的醫生同事艾芬醫生也對武漢的疫情提出了警告。據報道，艾芬醫生在接受採訪後再也不能露面了。
當政府壓制有點勇氣的普通行為時，往往招致更大膽的英勇行為。過去的幾個月中，有許多人表現出道德和行動上的勇氣，都在追求一個世紀前胡適、張彭春後幾代人的共同理想。他們中有政治人物、有人把生命獻給了信仰，也有人遵循中國傳統的良心學者，很多是普通公民。許章潤、任志強，許志勇、伊力哈木、方方、20 位拒絕上帝服從共產黨的天主教神父，以及去年數百萬為法治—法律的統治—而和平示威的香港市民。這些還只是少數。
今天， 五四運動進入它第二個世紀。它的最終遺產將是甚麼？這個問題，只有中國人民才能回答啊。 五四運動屬於他們。「五四」的民主願望還會等到下一世紀嗎？「五四」的核心思想會不會每次都被官方的審查而抹掉？ 今天仍然堅信這一主張的人會被稱為「不愛國」、「親美」有「顛覆性」嗎？我們知道共產黨會儘量這樣做的。 畢竟，毛澤東對「五四」英雄中少數仍被官方承認的最著名作家魯迅的寬容度也是有限的。1957年，官員羅稷南問毛澤東：「魯迅今天還活著會怎樣？」 毛澤東的回答語驚四座，「要麼被關在牢裏繼續寫他的，要麼一句話也不說。」
那些有志在中國尋求真理、說真話的人可能會感到安慰，魯迅寫道：「墨寫的謊說，決掩不住血寫的真實。」
最後，從美國的角度來看：胡適以解決問題而不在乎抽象政治理論著稱。 但是，讓我打破他「少談主義」的規則，試問今天的中國是否能從少一些民族主義和多一些平民主義中受益。平民主義民主較少關注左與右，而是關注上與下。 就是說，少數人需要得到多數人的同意。 當掌握特權的人脫離群眾、變得狹隘和自私，平民主義能使他們退縮或出局。這是一種動力。 它推動了 2015 年的英國脫歐；2016 年特朗普總統勝選；推動了貴校的創始人 1776 年參與簽署《獨立宣言》。它能提醒國家權貴記住他們應該為誰工作：「美國優先」！
類似的想法不也在「五四」精神中存在嗎？ 胡適的白話文難道不是針對自覺了不起的貴族嗎？難道不是對傳統權力結構的宣戰嗎？不是要在中國建立「民為重」的政府，而不是「打江山坐江山」嗎？世界將等待中國人民最終提供的答案。
感謝大家！
美國白宮網站英文翻譯全文：
Remarks by Deputy National Security Advisor Matt Pottinger to the Miller Center at the University of Virginia
Good morning everyone. I’m Matt Pottinger, the Deputy National Security Advisor, speaking to you from the White House. I bring warm greetings from the 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
We gather today online, from a thousand different places, because a pandemic still prohibits us from meeting in person. But through the marvel of the Internet, we have managed to come together as an even bigger group than if there had been no public health emergency. In ways big and small, we are all tapping our ingenuity as Americans, as Chinese, as human beings, to overcome hardship and preserve our communities.
“Big” examples of human ingenuity include harnessing biotechnology and data analytics to develop therapies and vaccines. “Small” examples of ingenuity include family members figuring out how to give each other haircuts when barbershops are closed. My wife, who is speaking on a panel later today, is a highly trained virologist. She is new to her role as the family barber, as you might have guessed by looking at my hair.
This is the second time I’ve had the privilege of addressing an audience at the Miller Center at the University of Virginia. Nearly a decade ago I was invited to speak about what I’d learned from service in the Marine Corps and about the relationship between our military and the civilians it defends. Since that day, I’ve never forgotten the warmth and wisdom of the Miller Center’s director, Governor Jerry Baliles, who passed away last October after a life of public service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and to our nation. We give thanks for people like Jerry.
Today, I’ve been invited by Professors Harry Harding and Shirley Lin to share some thoughts about U.S.-China relations. When Professor Lin told me this event would land precisely on the 101st anniversary of the start of China’s historic May Fourth Movement, I knew I had a potent topic for discussing the China of then and now.
On May the fourth, 1919, following the end of World War I, thousands of university students from across Beijing converged on Tiananmen Square to protest China’s unfair treatment at the Paris Peace Conference. Western nations chose to appease Imperial Japan by granting it control of Chinese territory that Germany had previously occupied, including the Shandong Peninsula.
The Chinese students who marched to Tiananmen that day shouted “give us back Shandong!” and “don’t sign the Versailles Treaty!” Police forced the students to disperse. But, as frequently happens when governments close down avenues for peaceful expression, some protesters resorted to violence. In a principled move that acknowledged popular anger, China refused to sign the Treaty of Versailles later that year.
China would regain control of Shandong three years later with the help of the United States, which brokered an agreement at the Washington Naval Conference in 1922. But the movement ignited by those students exactly 101 years ago was about much more than nationalist outrage at “unequal treaties.” The movement galvanized a long-running struggle for the soul of modern China. As John Pomfret wrote in his fine history of U.S.-China relations, the May Fourth Movement aimed for “a wholesale transformation of Chinese politics, society, and culture.” “Mr. Science” and “Mr. Democracy” were the mottos of this movement to transport China into modernity. Some called the movement the “Chinese Enlightenment.” Vera Schwarcz wrote an insightful book by that title. In fact, there’s a lot of good scholarship on this subject. At least two eminent historians of modern China are participating in this event today—Oxford’s Rana Mitter and the University of Virginia’s John Israel. I refer you to the experts to explore the history and meaning of the May Fourth Movement.
But I would like to spend a few minutes highlighting a few Chinese heroes that I believe embody the May Fourth spirit, then and now.
Hu Shih is naturally identified as one of the most influential leaders of the May Fourth era. He was already an influential thinker on modernizing China. Hu Shih’s family was from Anhui province. Like Lu Xun and many other leading writers of their generation, Hu Shih traveled overseas to study. After switching his focus at Cornell from agriculture to philosophy, Hu Shih studied at Columbia University under the American educator John Dewey.
Hu Shih would contribute one of the greatest gifts imaginable to the Chinese people: The gift of language. Up until then, China’s written language was “classical,” featuring a grammar and vocabulary largely unchanged for centuries. As many who have studied it can attest, classical Chinese feels about as close to spoken Chinese as Latin does to modern Italian. The inaccessibility of the written language presented a gulf between rulers and the ruled—and that was the point. The written word—literacy itself—was the domain primarily of a small ruling elite and of intellectuals, many of whom aspired to serve as officials. Literacy simply wasn’t for “the masses.”
Hu Shih believed otherwise. In his view, written Chinese—in form and content—should reflect the voices of living Chinese people rather than the documents of dead officials. “Speak in the language of the time in which you live,” he admonished readers. He believed in making literacy commonplace. He played a key role promoting a written language rooted in the vernacular, or baihua—literally “plain speech.” Hu Shih’s promotion of baihua is an idea so obvious in hindsight that it is easy to miss how revolutionary it was at the time. It was also highly controversial.
Gu Hongmin, a Confucian gentleman and Western literature professor at Peking University, ridiculed widespread literacy for China and what it implied. In August 1919 he wrote: “Just fancy what the result would be if ninety percent of [China’s] four hundred million people were to become literate. Imagine only what a fine state of things we would have if here in Peking the coolies, mafoos [stable boys], chauffeurs, barbers, shop boys, hawkers, hunters, loafers, vagabonds, [etc.] all became literate and wanted to take part in politics as well as the University students.”
Such elitist chauvinism was—and some would argue still remains—a headwind impeding the democratic ideals espoused by the May Fourth Movement. Hu Shih, wielding the language he had helped bring to life, skillfully dismantled arguments against broadening the social contract. “The only way to have democracy is to have democracy,” Hu Shih argued. “Government is an art, and as such it needs practice.” Hu Shih didn’t have time elitism.
Still, May Fourth leaders were constantly sapped of energy by accusations, sometimes leveled by government officials or their proxies among the literati, that the movement was slavishly pro-Western, insufficiently Chinese, or even unpatriotic.
The life and contributions of P.C. Chang make a mockery of the notion that the May Fourth ideals weren’t “Chinese” enough. Like his friend Hu Shih, Chang had studied in the United States on a scholarship. Attracted to the theater, he was the first to adapt the Chinese story of Mulan for the stage. He brought Western plays to Nankai University, which his brother helped found. And he organized a tour of the United States by the Peking Opera star Mei Lanfang, adapting the music and dance to Western tastes. In China’s philosophy of moral cultivation and rigorous education, Chang saw advantages that could be combined with ideas from the West to form something new.
This culminated in Chang’s crowning achievement: His decisive contributions to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This was the document drafted after World War II by an international panel chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt. Chang, who was by then a veteran diplomat representing China, was a member of the panel. The declaration’s aim was to prevent despotism and war by morally obligating governments to respect fundamental rights. The rights enshrined in the 1948 declaration include life, liberty, and security; the right not to be held in slavery or subjected to torture; the right to freedom of religion; and the right to freedom of thought.
“Marrying Western belief in the primacy of the individual with Chinese concern for the greater good” Chang helped craft a document that would be relevant to all nations, John Pomfret wrote. A declaration on human rights was not simply about the rights of the individual, in Chang’s view. It was also about the individual’s obligations to society.
Chang’s biographer, Hans Ingvar Roth of Stockholm University, highlighted the weight of Chang’s contributions to the Declaration: “Chang stands out as the key figure for all of the attributes now considered significant for this document: its universality, its religious neutrality, and its focus on the fundamental needs and the dignity of individual human beings.”
A few short years after the Declaration was adopted by the United Nations, Chang resigned his post as a Chinese diplomat, having grown dismayed by the lack of democracy in China. In diagnosing the problem, it is easy to imagine P.C. Chang prescribing a closer reading not of ancient Greek philosophy, but of traditional Chinese ideals about virtuous leadership. The cliché that Chinese people can’t be trusted with democracy was, as both P.C. Chang and Hu Shih knew, the most unpatriotic idea of all. Taiwan today is a living repudiation of that threadbare mistruth.
So who embodies the May Fourth spirit in China today? To my mind, the heirs of May Fourth are civic-minded citizens who commit small acts of bravery. And sometimes big acts of bravery. Dr. Li Wenliang was such a person. Dr. Li wasn’t a demagogue in search of a new ideology that might save China. He was an ophthalmologist and a young father who committed a small act of bravery and then a big act of bravery. His small act of bravery, in late December, was to pass along a warning via WeChat to his former medical school classmates that patients afflicted by a dangerous new virus were turning up in Wuhan hospitals. He urged his friends to protect their families.
When his warning circulated more widely than he intended, Dr. Li was upset and anxious—and with good reason. Supervisors at his hospital quickly admonished him for leaking word of the coronavirus cases. Dr. Li was then interrogated by the police, made to sign a “confession,” and threatened with prosecution if he spoke out again. Anyone tempted to believe this was just a case of overzealous local police, take note: China’s central government aired a news story about Dr. Li’s “rumor-mongering.”
Then Dr. Li did a big brave thing. He went public with his experience of being silenced by the police. The whole world paid close attention. By this time, Dr. Li had contracted the disease he’d warned about. His death on February 7 felt like the loss of a relative for people around the world. Dr. Li’s comment to a reporter from his deathbed still rings in our ears: “I think there should be more than one voice in a healthy society, and I don’t approve of using public power for excessive interference.” Dr. Li was using Hu Shih-style “plain speech” to make a practical point.
It takes courage to speak to a reporter—or to work as one—in today’s China. Even finding an investigative reporter in China, foreign or local, is getting hard. Citizen journalists who tried to shed light on the outbreak in Wuhan went missing, including Chen Qiushi, Fang Bin and Li Zehua. More foreign reporters were expelled in recent months than the Soviet Union expelled over decades. Dr. Ai Fen, a colleague of Dr. Li Wenliang who also raised the alarm about the outbreak in Wuhan, reportedly can no longer appear in public after she spoke to a reporter.
When small acts of bravery are stamped out by governments, big acts of bravery follow.
We have seen big acts of moral and physical courage recently by people pursuing the ideals that Hu Shih and P.C. Chang championed a century ago. Some are political insiders; some have devoted their lives to God. Others follow the long tradition of scholars serving as China’s conscience. Many are regular citizens. Xu Zhangrun, Ren Zhiqiang, Xu Zhiyong, Ilham Tohti, Fang Fang, 20 Catholic priests who have refused to subordinate God to the Communist Party, and the millions of Hong Kong citizens who peacefully demonstrated for the rule of law last year. The list goes on.
As the May Fourth Movement today marks the inaugural year of its second century, what will its ultimate legacy be? It is a question only the Chinese people themselves can answer. The May Fourth Movement belongs to them. Will the movement’s democratic aspirations remain unfulfilled for another century? Will its core ideas be deleted or distorted through official censorship and disinformation? Will its champions be slandered as “unpatriotic,” “pro-American,” “subversive”? We know the Communist Party will do its best to make it so. After all, Mao Zedong had limited tolerance even for Lu Xun, China’s most celebrated modern writer and one of the minority of May Fourth heroes whose writing wasn’t heavily censored by the Party. In 1957, an official named Luo Jinan asked Chairman Mao: “What if Lu Xun were alive today?” Mao’s reply about the national hero surprised many in the audience: “He could either sit in jail or continue to write or he could remain silent.”
Those with the fortitude to seek and speak the truth in China today may take comfort, however, in something Lu Xun wrote: “Lies written in ink can never disguise facts written in blood.”
One final thought, from a U.S. perspective: Hu Shih famously preferred solving concrete problems to wallowing in abstract political theory. But let me break his rule against discussing “isms” to ask whether China today would benefit from a little less nationalism and a little more populism. Democratic populism is less about left versus right than top versus bottom. It’s about reminding a few that they need the consent of many to govern. When a privileged few grow too remote and self-interested, populism is what pulls them back or pitches them overboard. It has a kinetic energy. It fueled the Brexit vote of 2015 and President Trump’s election in 2016. It moved the founder of your university to pen a declaration of independence in 1776. It is an admonition to the powerful of this country to remember who they’re supposed to work for: America first.
Wasn’t a similar idea beating in the heart of the May Fourth Movement, too? Weren’t Hu Shih’s language reforms a declaration of war against aristocratic pretension? Weren’t they a broadside against the Confucian power structure that enforced conformity over free thought? Wasn’t the goal to achieve citizen-centric government in China, and not replace one regime-centric model with another one? The world will wait for the Chinese people to furnish the answers.
Thank you.
白宮相關連結：
英文版
中文簡體字版
------------------
📰支持大紀元，購買日報：
https://www.epochtimeshk.org/stores
📊InfoG：
https://bit.ly/EpochTimesHK_InfoG
✒️名家專欄：
https://bit.ly/EpochTimesHK_Column
