Erenlai - Commitment to Freedom 以自由之名
Commitment to Freedom 以自由之名

Commitment to Freedom 以自由之名

There are the rights we are entitled to exercise, and the inner freedom we struggle for throughout our existence. Freedom, in the diversity of its social and personal manifestations, is something we all cherish and strive for. How can medias, politics or schools nurture liberty humanism and pluralism while adapting to new technological and social conditions? Here we explore how to make proper use of the freedoms we all value so much.


週四, 21 二月 2008

The Election That Nearly Everybody Lost

Once upon a time it was election year. The two major political parties were gearing up for the fall campaign. There were five issues that everybody considered important. The White Party was currently in power. They insisted that on every issue the status quo was right on track. They claimed that everyone should vote for them to make sure that nothing would change. The Black Party was the opposition party. They claimed that on every issue the status quo was deficient. They insisted that everybody should vote for them, so that everything could be changed.

Except for a few die-hards on both sides, nobody believed that on every issue everything was OK the way it was and nobody believed that on every issue there was nothing that was OK the way it was. So one day someone proposed a Gray Party. It would change only the issues that needed change and leave the rest the way they were. It looked for a moment that everyone would flock to that party. But the idea quickly fizzled out. It was impossible to reach a common agreement on which issues to change or how they should change.

Consequently, each party was flooded with candidates. Each campaigned on the one issue they considered most important to protect or the one most necessary to change. There were fierce national debates and fortunes were spent on advertising. On primary election days the turnouts reached record-breaking highs.

To everyone’s surprise, the candidates selected at the national conventions were those originally least expected to win. They were the only ones who had campaigned with no platform at all. They had only promised that the traditional values of their parties would guide them in making the right decisions at the right time.

The candidates of the Black and White Parties ran neck to neck in all the polls right up to election day eve. The only trend in the polls had been that more and more of the electorate were undecided. Bookies were raking in millions of dollars in wagers. Tensions were high.

The whole world anxiously held its breath in front of its television screens. Watching the election returns, they couldn’t believe their eyes. Neither major candidate won. There had been a maverick Senator who ran in every election as an Independent. This time in the closing weeks of the campaign he had repeated ad nauseam a single message: “If you can’t decide which party to vote for, vote for me. I embody the best of both parties.” He must have hit a nerve because he narrowly squeaked out a victory by winning well in a few key areas that had been undecided.

There are lessons hidden here.

If you can’t beat them, don’t join them,
just wait until they join you.

Don’t count your votes before they’re cast.

There is nothing all white
and nothing all black.
There is nothing gray
without its share of black and white.

It is impossible to vote for the best,
because usually the best
are not up for election.

And even if they were,
how would you know that they are the best,
if they haven’t been elected yet.

An election is like a lottery,
because you never know who is going to win.

An election is never like a lottery,
because it is not left to chance.

It’s nice if your candidate wins,
but the country doesn’t lose
if someone else is elected.

Attached media :

週四, 21 二月 2008

Me and my vote

One of the hallmarks of democracy as described by Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address is that it is a government “of the people, by the people and for the people”. “Of the people”, that is, not just the nobility or some privileged class, but potentially everybody; “by the people”, that is, it is the people through their representatives who plan the policies, make the decisions and carry out the policies; “for the people”, that is, for the benefit of all, not just the rich or those in power.

Of course, no democracy would work if it required the full participation of all the people all the time. It would be far too unwieldly, impractical, time-consuming and difficult to arrive at consensus. The work of the government is conducted by representatives of the people who have given them the authority to act on their behalf according to the directives of the constitution and legislation.

There are three important ingredients without which a democratic nation cannot survive or function, namely suffrage, consensus, and acquiescence.

Suffrage: the right to vote. If the people do not have the right to vote, then it is no longer a government of the people but a dictatorship. But not every election is democratic. Dictators love to hold elections in which the only candidate is themselves or their specially selected supporters and the elected are free to vote “yes” and subject to retaliation if they vote “no”. The people have not really spoken; they have only listened and submitted to what they heard.

A potential weakness of the right to vote is the right not to vote. If too many of the electorate are disinterested or indifferent or too busy about their own affairs or disgusted with politics, then the door is left open for determined minorities to wield too much power or for entrenched cliques to maintain their control. If I as a responsible citizen want to exercise my duty to vote, then I also have the responsibility to keep abreast of current events and study the issues so I can vote intelligently for what I believe will be best for the nation.

Another potential weakness of the voting system is that sometimes the most qualified or potentially best leaders are not the ones who end up on the ballots. They were overwhelmed by those who had more influential supporters or more funds for advertising or more aggressive killer instincts. Too many of the little people like ourselves were silent.

Consensus: the election returns are accepted as final. The winners take up the duties for which they were selected, regardless of whatever party they represent or their stand regarding the party in power. The people have spoken and the government has listened.

Acquiescence: the results are accepted and cooperated with even by those who voted against them. Those who lose step down. Any new regulations or policies will be accepted even by those who voted against them. Opposition will not cease, nor will controversy or debate, but in the meantime everyone is moving forward in the same direction.

The important thing about a true democracy is not that everyone gets the government they want, the representatives they personally supported or the policies they hold most dear, but that everyone stands behind their elected government and works together for the common good.

What is the use of voting, if I know that I will probably be outvoted? It is because I know that if enough of all the other people who think as I do also vote, our votes might make a difference. And those who are in power or want to be in power will know that they have to take our points of view into consideration, because we will always be there with our vote.
Bob also wrote a fable on elections

Attached media :


Nakao Eki 撰文


誠如作者在序言中引用美國Mark Monmonier教授的《如何用地圖撒謊》(How to Lie with Maps, 1996)所言,地圖雖然號稱是現實世紀的反映,卻從不曾真的忠實反映過現實世界,但永遠都誠實體現了製圖者的意念(註)。地圖就像繪畫,是以某種技巧來表達製圖者理解、詮釋世界的觀點。箇中最大的差異,在於繪畫被人視為藝術,是畫家個人意念與情感的表達,但地圖卻被視為科學的產物;而在我們這個將科學當作一種信仰來崇奉、榮耀歸於諾貝爾獎得主的時代裡,對「科學」的客觀性或權威性深信不疑(甚或敬畏),對於一個人的思考與判斷所具有的殺傷力堪稱無與倫比。

註 這一點並不新鮮,在Monmonier的書出版之前數年,Denis Wood便在《地圖的權力》(The Power of Maps, 1992)中指出,關於地圖,最難以理解掌握的並不是製圖方法或量測工具,也不是複雜的地形地貌或關於其他任何主題的數據資訊,而是製圖者的偏見。


週二, 15 一月 2008

The Justice-Mongers

Here is a fable that I wrote that illustrates some of the issues involved in establishing justice.


Once upon a time there was a King bright, industrious, and prosperous. He was the legendary King ABC. Everyone seemed to agree that he was a very good man. But the King himself didn’t think he was just good, he thought he was the best. The only persons he thought were good were those who liked what he liked, agreed with his opinions and did what he told them to do. Everyone else was bad. If only he could, ABC would get rid of them all. That way the whole world would only be filled with little ABC’s with him at the top, of course.

When King ABC’s wife finally became pregnant, he was filled with pride. “When my son is born, he will be twice as good as I am,” he said. But he was wrong for once. It was three times as good. His wife gave birth to triplets. He named them Triple A, Triple B and Triple C. They grew up determined to do good and to better the world.

All three sons hated war and violence. They were convinced that wars only happen because everyone wants peace the wrong way. Everyone thinks the only way to get peace is to fight for it and then fight to defend it. This has got to stop. There must be some way to make peace permanent without fighting. But each son proposed a different way of obtaining peace.

To Triple A the key to peace and prosperity was law and order. What the world needs are explicit rules and regulations very strictly enforced with no exceptions. Everybody will know exactly what to do and what not to do. And everyone who doesn’t conform will be tried and put in jail.

War was now illegal. There was no longer any need for armed forces to guard against attack. But the number of policemen grew by leaps and bounds. It wasn’t because there were more criminals or gangsters than before. It was just that there were too many regulations governing people’s lives, stifling their self-expression, restraining their aspirations and restricting their individuality and ambitions. Almost every time anyone wanted to have a good time their own way or do things differently, they found themselves arrested for some violation or other.

The more that Triple A maintained peace between nations the more difficult it became to maintain peace within the nation. Discontent and protests erupted everywhere. Soon they got out of hand and had to be put down violently. “When we do it, it isn’t violence,” a government spokesman said. “It’s enforcement.” The people yearned for the good old days. Life was so much more peaceful at home when there had been wars.

To Triple B the key to peace was justice for all. The problem was in determining in each instance where justice lay. Therefore the first thing the government had to do was to establish a long official list of people’s rights. Then it was decided that in every dispute, there would be compulsory arbitration and the decision of the mediators would be final. Justice was now defined officially as whatever the arbiters decreed. Everyone was expected to swallow his pride and humbly accept the official decisions no matter how arbitrary or unreasonable or unjust in the old sense they might be.

The results of Triple B’s policy were just as catastrophic. Everyone felt there was less justice now than in the former unjust times.

To Triple C the key to peace was equality for all. Some people have too much and don’t share with those who have nothing. Some people dress so attractively they make others look bad. The world would be more peaceful if everyone automatically got the same education, received the same salary and had the same opportunities to enjoy the fine things in life. Uniformity of dress and appearance, of language and culture, of dwellings and food, of sports and entertainment would restrain the proud and uplift the humble.

The only ones who applauded these changes were those who had absolutely nothing to begin with. Most of the people, however, had to give up something to conform to the norms and they were very unhappy. The only way the government found to maintain the new order was to create a police state.

So unfortunately, Triple C’s equality and uniformity did not create peace either. Equal education did not produce equally intelligent people. Equal opportunity did not mean equally qualified persons applied for the jobs. There were no longer good movies, only mediocre ones, and so on and so on. Everyone missed the variety and personal touches of their former lives.

King ABC was displeased with the way his three sons had messed things up. He decided to have another son. He named him Double D, since just a single D didn’t do justice to his hopes for him.

To Double D his three older brothers were all wrong. The key to peace is freedom. There will only be peace if everyone is free to be what he wants to be and to do whatever he wants to do. Of course, there must be some guidelines and some limits to what a person does, so the rights of others are respected, but let individuality reign.

If everyone is free to achieve his dreams and fulfill his aspirations, there will be peace. No one will lack anything and therefore have nothing that he needs to fight for. The talented must be free to develop their talents. The gifted must be free to exploit their gifts. The poor must be free to better their lives. The rich must be free to spend their riches however they like. Only the criminals will not be free to be criminal.

But Double D overlooked one important consideration. What happens when two or three persons are free to want something that only one of them can have? People soon found they weren’t free to get all the things they were free to want. There were winners and losers. The winners gloated to be free. The losers complained their freedom was violated. Soon it began to look like the most common freedom of all was freedom to be unhappy and disappointed. People longed for the good old days when not everything was free.

Disappointed, for one last time King ABC had another son. He named him E, just a single E. “That’s enough sons for me,” he said. “He’s the last. If he can’t remedy his brothers’ mistakes, then no one can.”

When E finally came of age his key to peace was fourfold. He advocated and promoted Reconciliation, Openness, Tolerance and Responsibility. Prince E was wise and pragmatic. “We do need law and order, but it needs to be flexible. Justice is important, too, but must be balanced with mercy and forgiveness. Equal rights are necessary, but each person’s uniqueness and personal qualities must be recognized and allowed to develop and enfold. Freedom there must be, but it must include freedom from its abuses.”

Not everyone was happy with the new order of things, but enough people were to make it work. And so once again for a while, the peace in the land was worth fighting for. But since no one wanted to take it away, there was nothing to go to war about.

There are lessons hidden here.

Laws should not tell us what to do,
but how to live and protect our freedom.

Justice without freedom is slavery.
Freedom without justice is chaos.
Justice without mercy is cruelty.
Mercy without justice is impotence.

There will never be a perfect world,
because no one is perfect.

There will always be rivalries and competition, winners and losers.
All we can do is to try our best
to balance the world in which we live
so everyone gets a fair share of what he or she needs
and a chance to realize what he or she wants.

Attached media :

週二, 15 一月 2008

Mercyful Justice and Judicious Mercy

There has always been tension between the demands of justice and calls for forgiveness and between the straight and narrow bounds of justice and the leeways of charity. Just trying to draw the fine line between justice and injustice is problem enough. Justice is measured by conformity to some norm of what is right and proper or tied to provisions specified in a rule of law, but there has never been universal agreement about those norms nor any uniform set of law.
Besides defining what is just, there is the matter of enforcing it and punishing infractions of it. For the whole system to be just, there must be some just restraint, so that no more is demanded than what is strictly just, the enforcement respects all the rights of the individuals involved and the retribution is in proportion to the circumstances of the violation. If into this pot is added the dizzying often contradictory coercions of religious beliefs, interpretations and practices, the vast inconsistencies and contradictions of contemporary legal systems, the pride, enmity, vengeance, greed, criminal intents of many of those responsible for the interpretation and enforcement of justice, then it is a wonder that any justice manages to prevail at all.
There are two images of justice that come to my mind. The first is that of a blindfolded lady, who presumably is not influenced or coerced by bribery or friendship, but just makes her judgment based only on the facts. A noble idea, but how can she see the facts or recognize the deceptions or the true claims of the claimants if her eyes are closed? She has to weigh what she hears and investigate what she is shown before any impartial determination can be made.
The second image is also of a lady, this time balancing the two sides of a scale. Justice is presumably reached when the two sides are exactly balanced. But this supposes that in the pan on one side is nothing more than the bare unbiased demands of justice and on the other side nothing more than the honest unbiased actual realities of the case. A noble idea, but this seems to leave no room or place for forgiveness or mercy or charity or lenience. It is an accurate description of how the discernment of what is just should be reached, but in real life, that is often only the first step in the execution of justice. And in real life, the issues are not always so clear: the evidence may be only circumstantial, vital facts may be missing, or there are contradictory witnesses, so the very balancing act is arbitrary and not absolute.
Following the judgment comes the determination of retribution and/or punishment. This is where the elements of charity, forgiveness, mercy, severity or leniency or even full pardon come in. In a certain sense, if the judgment is truly just than any tampering or mitigation of its demands is in some way unjust. But what if the most important thing is not a harsh slap on the wrist for wrongdoing, but what is best for the guilty person, offering hope of improvement and more positive ways of making up for what has happened? It is often expedient for the good of individuals or the public welfare for the judge to look beyond the bare letter of the law. This is not easy, neither is it always successful. There are many instances in which leniency or kindness backfired and the transgressor went on to further transgressions, but this is far outweighed in the many cases of those whose lives were transformed by the charity and goodwill of those they injured.
This being the case, judges and the victims should always be more like God Himself, who is as ready to exact or demand justice as He is to grant mercy and forgiveness, most of the time combining both.

Attached media :

週五, 04 一月 2008



魏明德 撰文



週四, 15 十一月 2007

Asia needs more maturity

Asia’s big growing economies need to gain maturity to lead Asia’s development
Businessmen and politicians act at different levels
When you are a businessman, you go where the opportunities are, wherever the country is situated in the world. Recently, more and more Taiwanese are investing in the newly opened markets of Brazil, Russia, India and China. Capitalism teaches you, in a globalize world, to be ready to cooperate with countries, even if you do not agree with their national system. In this sense, economic exchanges go beyond political barriers, but do not promote political integration. Governments use economic cooperation to maintain their position in the foreign affairs of that country. Through economic exchange, Taiwan tries to ensure other countries will not attack the country, even though they do not have diplomatic relations with Taiwan. It is a political game.

Culture travels without borders
TheTaiwanese adopt with a special ease other habits and life styles of other cultures, especially the ones from developed countries like Japan or the United States. I am ethnically Chinese, but I am also a local Taiwanese whose culture has changed and evolved through the stages of national development since the 1970’s. I use a very cultural approach to define my identity, and I can hardly say I am an Asian, because I would need to understand more the Hindus before I can assimilate with them. I think it is because we do not communicate enough with them that we think we are different. To improve common understanding, Asians should read and travel more.

The strong economies in Asia are not mature enough to form a union
Europe could successfully build the European Union because there were stable and strong developed countries which could lead its construction, such as France and Germany. They were even able later to support developing economies of other European countries. In Asia, the economic development of the two major powers in Asia, India and China, is a new phenomenon and they need more time to grow mature and learn to work together. It is a necessary pre-condition to think about establishing a union. Japan is geographically too small to lead, and Southeast Asian governments are too unstable. The current crisis in Myanmar illustrates this problem. In this situation, I think we cannot realistically think of building any union in the next twenty years.

Taiwan could be the ‘Asian Brussels’ to hold the headquarters of the Asia Union institutions
Because Taiwan fails to establish diplomatic relationships with other Asian countries, the country needs to be given a strategic role to convince the people to invest money and efforts in constructing an Asian Union. Taiwan is a stable and developed country, at the border of South and North East Asia. I believe Singapore would pretend to play this role as well. However, I believe if Taiwan is given this opportunity, it could also help to ease the tensions between the island and China. Everyone wishes one’s home country can develop and gain more power on the regional scene. I think Asia can face the Western powers only through cooperation which could be achieved in the form of a union, involving for example the two leading economies of China and India..

Wish for Asia in twenty years:
There are many latent conflicts in Asia. Perhaps if they could all be resolved as soon as possible in twenty years, there will be no more political tensions and Asia will be able to establish the basis for the construction of a peaceful union.


Attached media :

週一, 05 十一月 2007

The only bad problems are those we don't solve

We live in a world beset with problems. There are many world crises that experts say are threatening the health and the livelihood of all earth’s inhabitants. There is the energy crisis, the global warming crisis, the social and political and economic crises signified by the growing gap between the rich and the poor, between the First World and the Third World, and finally the environmental pollution crisis together with the depletion and wasting of natural resources.

At the very same time, there many solutions proposed by experts that can alleviate or even eliminate these threats. Why then do they still remain?

Perhaps the most alarming and most amazing thing about these crises is not the dangers they impose, but the fact that so many people refuse to take them seriously.

Those who are most concerned have so far failed to agree upon any unified, common solutions that are acceptable to all.

Those with the political power to impose the measures necessary are more afraid of the costs or the complaints of the inconvenienced rather than on the hardships that will ultimately ensue if measures are not taken.

Why is it that in a world which is full of so many proposed solutions, so many problems still exist and so many solutions remain untried?

Let me illustrate the answer by telling an allegorical story.


Once upon a time in the mythical land of Poormania there was a huge gap between the very rich who wielded all the power and the very poor who greatly outnumbered the very rich but lacked political power. Some of the very Rich People had no time to enjoy their riches because they were too busy making more money. Some of the very Rich People were so busy enjoying the luxuries their wealth provided, they thought of nothing else. Some of the very Rich People felt uneasy to have so much while others had so little, but they did nothing about it or were at a loss what to do.

Some of the very Poor People were content to just enjoy as best they could the little they had, because there were no jobs and nothing else to do. Some of the Poor People did not complain, but just kept looking for employment and odd jobs to feed their families, Some of the Poor People were quite unhappy with their lot and were looking for ways to make things change.

At the same time there were lots of people in Poormania who were neither very rich nor very poor. Some of the Middle People just went about their lives quite oblivious of the problems of others. Some of the Middle People knew about the discrepancies between the Rich People and the Poor People, but thought it was none of their business or concern. Some of the Middle People profited by providing services for the enjoyment and amusement of the Rich People or by providing social services for the Poor People. Some of the Middle People felt uneasy and compelled to do something, but weren’t sure what.

There were basically eight kinds of Rich People.

Rich People One paid no attention to the Poor People and therefore were completely unconcerned.

Rich People Two looked down on the Poor People and condemned them as lazy and worthless scum, who had no one to blame but themselves for their sorry plight, so they ignored them.

Rich People Three felt sorry for the Poor People and wrote checks with tiny donations and thought they had done enough.

Rich People Four to show their concern for the Poor People complained loudly that the government wasn’t doing enough to help them, but they did nothing themselves.

Rich People Five saw an opportunity to make more money for themselves and hired more Poor People to work for them at the lowest possible salaries.

Rich People Six couldn’t understand why the Poor People were so dissatisfied and were very angry about the Poor People’s complaints and demonstrations and strikes and claimed that their ungrateful behavior meant that they didn’t deserve to be listened to.

Rich People Seven realized that it was hard for anyone with a family to survive on only the minimum wage, so they offered the Poor People opportunities for education and training so they could get better paying jobs.

Rich People Eight realized there is something wrong with a society in which those slaving at the bottom barely have enough to keep them alive while those at the top have so much more than they ever need. They began to campaign for social and economic reform and in particular that the Rich People should be satisfied with less and the Poor People earn more. They were joined by all the Rich People who believed that those who have should share with those who have not and by the Rich People who felt it just didn’t seem right to take so much for themselves while they gave so little to others.

At once Rich Peoples One to Seven were at the throats of Rich People Eight and their supporters. To give something to Poor People was a yes-yes that had to be tolerated, but to take anything away from Rich People was a no-no that could not be accepted. They were joined by all the Middle People, who profited from the luxurious items and services that the Rich People enjoyed.

There were also eight kinds of Poor People.

Poor People One were concerned only about the happiness of their families.

Poor People Two were content enough not to envy the Rich People, but felt pity for them having to work so hard to keep their riches.

Poor People Three couldn’t understand why the Rich People wouldn’t give them jobs and just kept trying to find work.

Poor People Four thought there was nothing wrong with taking whatever they could behind the backs of Rich People, so long as they didn’t get caught.

Poor People Five joined an organization publicly demon-strating and advocating social reform.

Poor People Six felt it was better to obey the law and suffer within the system, rather than to risk losing life and home through violence and revolt.

Poor People Seven believed the only way to achieve reform was through passive resistance.

Poor People Eight threw all caution to the wind and went to war against all the Rich People.

And what were the results of all these differing attitudes and opinions? Well, the Rich People were so divided among themselves whether or not to do anything or what to do, they ended up unable to find any good solution to the problem. The Poor People likewise never united behind any common action, so there were as many setbacks as there were gains.

Fortunately, the Middle People in Poormania, who were not so rich and not so poor, eventually did reach a consensus and had enough numbers and power to make the necessary reforms, so that for a while social justice and economic stability and public approval prevailed.

But then once again as so often happens, a few clever ambitious entrepreneurs rose up through the cracks to become the new Rich People and many less capable or exploited persons fell down through the cracks to become the new Poor People and Poormania ended up right back where it had been before.

There are lessons hidden here.

Too many of us turn our backs on problems that don’t seem to directly affect us and just let others worry about them. Few problems are ever solved by looking the other way. Why is it so hard to realize that the reason we so often end up with both cheeks dirty is because we neglected to wipe off the dirty cheek on time?

Many hands are better than one only if they work together.

Sometimes it is easier to just turn the other cheek, but often it would have been better to tweak the offender’s cheek.

It is always easier to agree on solutions that involve others. The hardest problems to face are those in which you yourself are a part of the problem. The hardest solutions to undertake are those that involve you yourself as part of the solution.

Consensuses based on convenient compromise tend to fall apart the moment they become inconvenient for anybody.

So, with so many willing hands, why is it so hard to agree on what is wrong or on how to make it right? When are we all going to sit down, weigh the options and finally begin to do something concrete and constructive?

Attached media :

週四, 27 九月 2007


在這Web 2.0的時代,記者如何勝任資訊守門人及篩選者的角色?

過去談新聞記者,總會聯想到「鐵腳、馬眼、神仙肚」的本事。「鐵腳」就是能跑;「馬眼」就是反應快,要「眼觀六路,耳聽八方」;「神仙肚」就是肚子能餓,兩三頓不吃飯,照樣生龍活虎地跑新聞。在資訊爆炸的Web 2.0世界裡,記者要爭取立足之地,除了上述基本要求外,以編造連續劇的功力來包裝新聞似乎已不可少。記者在鑽研如何以更譁眾取寵的激情手法包裝新聞之餘,到底還應該如何培養自己的專業表現。事實上,現在訊息的流傳方式異常複雜,網路訊息雖讓我們輕易獲得世界各地的消息,但在網路中充斥業餘人士的意見,甚至網路謠言、網路傳說,以訛傳訛,真假難辨,在在都顯示我們極需專業記者的補足。

註1 維基百科台灣媒體
註2 媒體訐譙區


週五, 24 八月 2007




文化保衛戰 節節敗退





週三, 25 七月 2007




週二, 24 四月 2007

Some Reflections on Life and Living

I am not afraid to die, though I am apprehensive of the possible pain and sickness that may be involved. I look forward to be reunited with my departed family and friends and to meet all my ancestors and discuss world events with those who actually took part in them. But that doesn’t mean I am eager to die. There have always been saintly spiritual men who pine for release from this life to reach God as soon as possible. That certainly is not me. This is my only chance to enjoy life on earth. I want it to last as long as possible. Heaven will last forever, putting it off for a while will not diminish it in any way.
第 6 頁,共 7 頁





« 六月 2020 »
星期一 星期二 星期三 星期四 星期五 星期六 星期日
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

目前有 3459 個訪客 以及 沒有會員 在線上