Видео

中國的文字是老祖宗留下寶貴的禮物，細良兄的對台灣國會上的打閗，根源報導很清楚和真實，可惜台灣人有部分不懂廣東話，可否在報導時加上文字，令台灣人都知道內容，明白打閗的理由和真相大白。 支持細良兄，辛苦你。❤❤❤

深有同感

又一個香港！！

陳橋事件，細良被攻擊係私怨大於大切，我沒有興趣聽！細良的國際時局分析沒有人做得比他好，除了沈旭暉的國際關係可與細良並駕齊驅。 支持細良💪🏻

👍💪💪💪🙏

係囉，何伯同新何太單嘢都可以炒作得咁勁，咁樣就可以軟化香港人對政治嘅觸角。

支持細良💪

天佑台灣！🙏🧧

😊😊😊

所有攻擊細良都係收左老共錢

天祐自由世界

秦滅六國，受秦賄者，慘遭抄家，但願恥君，不遇此劫

傳崑其是國民黨黨團召集人，劉生說錯成民進黨很多次。

不可多得的好節目，努力，謝謝。

香港樣本 最大劑 台灣人民還未醒 天佑寶島

不論如何，有些人死纏爛打，講來講去，聽落都係似幸災樂禍，「仲捉你唔到」嗰種感覺，聽得多都feel 到唔對路

❤❤❤

支持細良，城塞，加油💪💪

❤❤

Good

識得又肯用腦袋思考嘅人，大家繼續支持細良。 時間會說話的👍

重温歷史 內容充實 又代5元落袋

當年我被公司派去北京、上海工作多年。退休回港後我從不入中囤大陸連深圳都不去。

多謝細良，精僻分析，支持細良，支持城寨！

謝謝🙏劉細良分析報告❤⋯⋯我們支持⬆️❤劉細良❤️❤️❤️❤️👍👍👍🙏

❤謝謝支持細良兄👍👍👍

城寨是關心全球視野的粵語台表表者 珍惜🙏

不為人妒是庸才，世良受功擊是正常的

整天陳喬前陳喬後，搬弄道德是非！ 要不就是常常談論何生何太！如果其他網台淪落到須要靠講是非批鬥同行炒作八卦新聞來增加點擊增加訂閱的話！咁就真係悲哀哦！

台灣嘅立法院搞成咁，遠因係嗰個用嚟做政治分贜同埋酬庸嘅「不分區立法委員」議席： 成個立法院有113席，當中「由比例代表制選出的全國不分區及僑居國外國民立法委員」就有34席，佔總議席整整三成。候選人由政黨提名，嚮名單嘅排名由政黨決定，選民無得嚮選票決定排名。擺韓國瑜入去不分區名單第一名，瞓嚮度選都會贏，然後再用立法院嘅控制權嚟選佢做立法院院長。上屆嘅吳思懷都係咁樣選出嚟。其實唔淨止中国国民党，其實民主进步党都係用呢個制度嚟保送啲冚家剷入去立法院。 呢個遊戲規則係由2008年初開始（順便將立法院議席減半）。之後嘅行政權係由中国国民党馬英九執政８年，民主进步党蔡英文執政８年同埋賴清德未來嗰４年。而且過去８年，民主进步党係一黨控制咗立法院。既然大家都知道呢個制度仆街，但點解唔改？咁民主进步党自己都貪，自己都有份建立同埋維護呢個制度。 正如主持所講，個個政黨都係仆街，咁請問台灣班「民主富二代」呢？又係好似2014年年初嘅「服務貿易協議」咁，要死到臨頭先至靠台北市班學生自己衝出嚟？又係靠班學生同班知識份子？請問班中產同埋基層去咗邊？ 再睇返歷史：除咗選舉嘅政黨動員，台灣有邊次政治運動真係全國各個階層全民參與？ 1980年美麗島／1990年野百合／2014年太陽花係咪全國各個階層全民參與？出咗幾多人？大家數吓？ 近年對台灣政治影響最深遠而又係全民參與嘅政治運動其實發生嚮香港：2019年嘅「反送中革命」。因為如果無「反送中革命」，韓國瑜而家根本唔係立法院院長，因為佢根本唔會選立法院，佢早就嚮2020年1月嚮總統選舉贏咗蔡英文，而家係即將連任到2028年5月嘅中華民國總統。 嚮一個已經全面民主化嘅國家：咁嘅水平嘅人可以嚮1990年代選倒立法委員，之後選輸輾轉做啲酬庸嘅職位；去到2018年鹹魚翻生拎倒九十幾萬票做埋市長，仲可以選總統；俾選民罷免之後，下一屆又可以瞓嚮度選入去立法院，然後做埋院長指點天下。 台灣真係一個充滿勵志故事嘅地方～

唔知乜事，既然這個陳乜咁多人尊敬，又信他被人欺負，為什麼當日不咬牙切齒為他出頭要等他死後且又要7年之後才各人爭相駡人呢？又律師、又學者、又名人又記者，駡聲四起，好有理據，真恐怖呀！

聽完衰爸爸又繼續聽細良，獲識良多！😊

👍👍👍

分析陳橋一事，值得欣賞！有些人乘機找機會侵人！愚蠢！

Thanks!

多謝細良詳細分析! 另外很奇怪，大批KOL 最近一齊圍攻細良，也有好多一知半解的人跟隨take side，但喺如果在7年前已有問題，點解唔係7年前就圍攻，而係而家？莫非有人落order？如果民主派人士內鬥，邊嗰最開心？有時要冷静思考一d 問題 城寨加油!

多謝兩位💪💪💪👍👍👍🙏🙏🙏❤️❤️❤️

多謝細良分享！一直相信你支持你，加油💪

內戰時，大批國軍將領倒戈。今日大批國民黨人為個人利益，不顧二千三百萬台灣人利益，甘願作中共代理人兼馬前卒，可恥！

👍👍👍🤔👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻😉

韓國瑜眼見國民黨全副武裝，傅箕崐企主席椅，卻不叫休會，見沈伯洋受傷送院，仍叫沈發言，強行不討論立即表決，他是幫兇。

细良，你應加入加拿大議會。

遺憾一大堆kol仍針對陳喬事件大做文章，正如陶傑所云，不值一提。

傅崐萁唔係民進黨黨團總召，你是否講錯咗啊？🤬😏，希望及時更正。

我睇過沈伯洋發言，非常欣賞佩服他，難怪民進黨推他為不分區首名，民進黨人才輩出。

美國🇺🇸晚上🌃⋯⋯ 謝謝🙏分析劉細良❤❤❤我們支持⬆️

2位了不起😊

支持細看歷史，好有趣!!!!!希望keep住做

講得好，推反中共應為頭等大事！

From a strict legal point of view, Sai Leung did nothing wrong by publishing the book. The copyright of the photos belongs to the SCMP. Sai Leung was authorized by the SCMP to publish the photos. There is no copyright infringement here. The SCMP could have published the book on its own without Mr. Chan's consent because SCMP is the copyright holder. Critics alleged that Sai Leung failed to obtain Mr. Chan's consent to publish the book. Sai Leung said he did by way of Mr. Chan's oral representation. We don't know whether he did or did not. Even if he did not, he was not required to because Mr. Chan was not the copyright holder. Critics also allege that Mr. Chan was "upset" by the publication of the book because the book was published without his input. We don't know Mr. Chan's true feelings toward the book. Did Mr. Chan issue any statement protesting against the publication of the book? If he did not, how do we know that he objected to the book? All we have is a statement from Mr. Chan’s daughter, which is hearsay by the way. One commentator justified Mr. Chan's inaction by saying that that was because Mr. Chan wanted to give "face" to Sai Leung and because Chinese people don't want to air dirty public laundry in pubic. I am sorry. But wanting to give someone "face" does not excuse a person from failing to exercise his legal right. Neither do cultural stereotypes about Chinese people's behavior. The fact about Mr. Chan's failure to take action coupled with the fact that he did put his autographs on some copies of the book could constitute an implicit endorsement of the book. This is a point Sai Leung should take note of should this case go to litigation. From a Chinese cultural point of view, it may be said that Sai Leung failed to show enough respect to a veteran photojournalist like Mr. Chan. This point may or may not be valid. The problem is that it is hard to measure "respect" by any objective standard. Even if this point is valid, it does not constitute an infringement of a legal right. Failing to show enough respect is not the same as intentionally depriving someone of his legal right. They are two entirely different matters. Unfortunately, many commentators have confused the two. Also, many interpretations about Chinese culture concerning respect are highly subjective, nothing more than cultural stereotypes. Innuendos and cultural stereotypes about what Chinese people would or would not do never stand up in a court of law. Also, how much importance should we attach to cultural sensitivity when Mr. Chan was a long-term Canadian resident, living in a country placing a premium on the rule of law? Had Mr. Chan felt that his right was infringed upon, he should have taken action to protect his right. The book was published in 2017. Mr. Chan had 7 years to take action before he passed away in 2024. If he did not take action during the 7-year interval, a reasonable inference can be drawn that Mr. Chan consented to the publication of the book or at least he did not object to it. That’s evidence. Critics point out there is no “evidence” that Mr. Chan “authorized” Sai Leung to publish the book. But Mr. Chan was not in a positron to authorize it because he was the copyright holder. Also, there is at least circumstantial evidence that there was consent or lack of objection. Mr. Chan clearly had knowledge of the publication of the book. There is a good case to argue that Mr. Chan's family is now barred by the statute of limitations from making any claim against Sai Leung. I commend Sai Leung for his efforts in preserving Hong Kong's historical record. I don't think he has any ulterior motive of profiteering. This case has been blown way out of proportion. To me, preserving Hong Kong's historical record is more important than protecting the sensitivity of the personal feelings of some people. If personal feelings are all that matter, then museums all over the world should return all Chinese artifacts to China because they, too, hurt the feelings of the Chinese people.