關於 what is national security ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

//An activist detained under Hong Kong’s national security law is planning to apply to the High Court to lift restrictions on the media’s reporting of her bail hearing on Wednesday.

In a message published on Tuesday, Gwyneth Ho argued that laws banning the media from reporting details of bail hearings failed to protect the interests of the accused. The press should be allowed to freely report what happened during those hearings, she said.

“After the defendants under the national security law were arrested and remanded in custody, the reporting restrictions on bail hearings have turned the process into a ‘black box’, and has created widespread fears in society,” she wrote.

“The public has no way of knowing the contents of the bail hearings under the national security law, especially the evidence used by the prosecutors and the courts’ assessment of the defendants.”

Ho is among 47 democracy figures charged with conspiracy to commit subversion, which carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. They are accused of plotting to subvert state power via an informal primary poll held last July. Only 13 of the 47 have been granted bail since early March.

After being detained for more than six months, Ho will make her bail application at the High Court on Wednesday morning.

She publicised her arguments a day in advance, saying the reporting restrictions set out under section 9P of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance were originally meant to ensure that defendants received a fair trial. The law limits media coverage of bail hearings to basic information such as the defendant’s name, the court’s decision and bail conditions.

Those regulations backfired because the lack of transparency had caused the public to doubt whether the national security law had been fairly implemented, Ho wrote, adding that Hong Kong society was worried about arbitrary arrests based on flimsy evidence.

“In reality, the reporting restrictions benefit the Department of Justice, as it no longer needs to publicly explain the basis of the charges and various political accusations,” she wrote.

“The restrictions have clearly contravened the principle of public justice, and if the courts still refuse to lift them, the public will inevitably suspect that the courts accept this unfair situation.”

The open administration of justice was a fundamental principle of Hong Kong’s common law system, and courts should be scrutinised by the public and the press, Ho said, quoting the city’s former chief justice Denys Roberts.

Hong Kong courts have mostly kept reporting restrictions in place for bail applications under the national security law, though some judges have issued written rulings explaining their decision to grant or refuse bail, which are typically published after a delay.

Earlier on Tuesday, the court again denied the bail application of former pro-democracy lawmaker Gary Fan, a co-defendant in the subversion case. Like most of the 47, Fan has been in custody for months with no trial date lined up as yet.

By Holmes Chan//

毋忘五大訴求　公民抗命有理
—10‧20九龍遊行陳情書
（案件編號：DCCC 535/2020）

——————————————————
「毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中」
撐阿銘，即訂閱Patreon：
patreon.com/raphaelwong
—————————————————

胡法官雅文閣下：

　　2012年，我第一次站在法庭上承認違反「公安惡法」，述說對普選的盼望，批評公安惡法不義，並因公民抗命的緣故，甘心樂意接受刑罰。當年我說，如果小圈子選舉沒有被廢除，惡法沒有消失，我依然會一如故我，公民抗命，並且我相信將會有更多學生和市民加入這個行列。想不到時至今日，普選仍然遙遙無期，我亦再次被帶到法庭接受審判，但只是短短７年，已經有數十萬計的群眾公民抗命，反對暴政。今日，我承認違反「未經批准的政府」所訂立「未經批准的惡法」之下的「未經批准集結」罪，我不打算尋求法庭的憐憫，但請容許我佔用法庭些微時間陳情，讓法庭在判刑前有全面考慮。

暴力之濫觴

　　在整個反修例運動如火如荼之際，我正承擔另一宗公民抗命案件的刑責。雖然身在獄中，但仍然心繫手足。我在獄中電視機前見證6月9日、6月16日及8月18日三次百萬港人大遊行，幾多熱愛和平的港人冒天雨冒彈雨走上街頭，抗議不義惡法，今日關於10月20日的案件，亦是如此。可能有人會問，政府已在6月暫緩修例，更在9月正式撤回修例，我等仍然繼續示威，豈非無理取鬧？我相信法官閣下肯定聽過「遲來的正義並非正義」（Justice delayed is justice denied）這句格言。當過百萬群眾走上街頭，和平表達不滿的時候，林鄭政府沒有理睬，反而獨行獨斷，粗暴踐踏港人的意願，結果製造出後來連綿不絕的爭拗，甚至你死我活的對抗。經歷眾多衝突痛苦之後，所謂暫緩撤回，已經微不足道，我們只是更加清楚：沒有民主，就連基本人權都不會擁有！

　　在本案之中，雖然我們都沒有鼓動或作出暴力行為，但根據早前8‧18及10‧1兩宗案件，相信在控方及法庭眼中，案發當日的暴力事件仍然可以算在我們頭上，如此，我有必要問：如果香港有一個公平正義的普及選舉，人民可以在立法會直接否決他們不認可的法律，試問2019年的暴力衝突可以從何而來呢？如果我們眼見的暴力是如此十惡不赦，那麼我們又如何看待百萬人遊行後仍然堅持推行惡法的制度暴力呢？如果我們不能接受人民暴力反抗，那麼我們是否更加不能對更巨大更壓逼的制度暴力沈默不言？真正且經常發生的暴力，是漠視人民訴求的暴力，是踐踏人民意見的暴力，是剝奪人民表達權利的暴力。真正憎恨暴力，痛恨暴力的人，不可能一方面指摘暴力反抗，又容忍制度暴力。如果我需要承擔和平遊行引發出來的暴力事件的刑責，那麼誰應該承擔施政失敗所引發出來的社會騷亂的罪責呢？

社會之病根

　　對於法庭而言，可能2019年所發生的事情只是一場社會騷亂，務必追究違法者個人責任。然而，治亂治其本源，醫病醫其病根，我雖然公民抗命，刻意違法，控方把我帶上法庭，但我卻不應被理解為一個「犯罪個體」。2019年所發生的事情，並不是我一個人或我們這幾位被告可以促成，社會問題的癥結不是「犯罪份子」本身，而是「犯罪原因」。我明白「治亂世用重典」的道理，但如果「殺雞儆猴」是解決方法，就不會在2016年發生旺角騷亂及2017年上訴庭對示威者施以重刑後，2019年仍然會爆發出更大規模的暴力反抗。

如果不希望社會動亂，就必須正本清源，逐步落實「五大訴求」，從根本上改革，挽回民心。2019年反修例運動，其實只是2014年雨傘運動的延續而已，縱使法庭可能認為兩個運動皆是「一股歪風」所引起，但我必須澄清，兩個運動的核心就是追求民主普選，人民當家作主。在2019年11月24日區議會選舉這個最類近全民普選的選舉中，接近300萬人投票，民主派大勝，奪得17個區議會主導權，這就是整個反修例運動的民意，民意就是反對政府決策，反對制度暴力，反對推行惡法，不容爭辯，不辯自明。我們作為礦場裡的金絲雀，多次提醒政府撤回修法，並從根本上改革制度，而在10月20日的九龍遊行當然是反映民意的平台契機。如今，法庭對我們施加重刑，其實只不過是懲罰民意，將金絲雀困在鳥籠之內，甚至扼殺於鼓掌之中，窒礙表達自由。

堅持之重要

　　大運動過後的大鎮壓，使我們失去《蘋果日報》，失去教協，失去民陣，不少民主派領袖以及曾為運動付出的手足戰友都囚於獄中，不少曾經熱情投入運動的朋友亦因《國安法》的威脅轉為低調，新聞自由示威自由日漸萎縮，公民社會受到沈重打擊，我亦失去不少摯友，有感傷孤獨的時候，但我仍然相信，2019年香港人的信念，以及所展現人類的光輝持久未變。我不會忘記百萬人民冒雨捱熱抗拒暴政，抵制惡法，展現我們眾志成城；我不會忘記人潮紅海，讓道救護車，展現我們文明精神；我不會忘記年青志士直接行動反對苛政，捨身成仁，展現我們膽色勇氣；我不會忘記銀髮一族走上街頭保護年青人，展現我們彼此關懷；我不會忘記「五大訴求」，不會忘記2019年區議會選舉，展現我們有理有節。

　　法官閣下，我對於當日的所作所為，不感羞恥，毫無悔意。我能夠在出獄後與群眾同行一路，與戰友同繫一獄，實是莫大榮幸。若法治失去民主基石，將使法庭無奈地接受專制政權所訂立解釋的法律限制，隨時變成政治工具掃除異見，因此爭取民主普選，建設真正法治，追求公平正義，仍然是我的理想。在這條路上，如有必要，我仍然會公民抗命，正如終審法院海外非常任法官賀輔明（Lord Hoffmann）所言，發自良知的公民抗命有悠久及光榮的傳統，歷史將證明我們是正確的。我期望，曾與我一起遊行抗命的手足戰友要堅持信念，在艱難歲月裡毋忘初衷，活在愛和真實之中。

　　最後，如9年前一樣，我想借用美國民權領袖馬丁路德金牧師的一番話對我們的反對者說：「我們將以自己忍受苦難的能力，來較量你們製造苦難的能力。我們將用我們靈魂的力量，來抵禦你們物質的暴力。對我們做你們想做的事吧，我們仍然愛你們。我們不能憑良心服從你們不公正的法律，因為拒惡與為善一樣是道德責任。將我們送入監獄吧，我們仍然愛你們。」（We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you.）

　　願慈愛的主耶穌賜我們平安，與我和我一家同在，與法官閣下同在，與香港人同在。沒有暴徒，只有暴政；五大訴求，缺一不可！願榮耀歸上帝，榮光歸人民！

第五被告
黃浩銘
二零二一年八月十九日

Lest we forget the five demands: civil disobedience is morally justified
- Statement on 10‧20 Kowloon Rally
(Case No.: DCCC 535/2020)

Your Honour Judge Woodcock

In 2012, I stood before the court and admitted to violating the "Public Security Evil Law". I expressed my hope for universal suffrage, criticized the evil law as unjust, and willingly accepted the penalty for civil disobedience. Back then, I said that if the small-circle election had not been abolished and the draconian law had not disappeared, I would still be as determined as I was, and I believe that more students and citizens would join this movement. Today, universal suffrage is still a long way off, and I have been brought before the court again for trial. But in just seven years, hundreds of thousands of people have already risen up in civil disobedience against tyranny. Today, I plead guilty to "unauthorised assembly" under an unapproved evil law enacted by an unauthorised government. I do not intend to seek the court's mercy, but please allow me to take up a little time in court to present my case so that the court can consider all aspects before sentencing me.

The roots of violence

At the time when the whole anti-extradition law movement was in full-swing, I was taking responsibility for another civil disobedience case. Although I was in prison, my heart was still with the people. I witnessed the three million-person rallies on 9 June, 16 June and 18 August on television in prison, when many peace-loving people took to the streets despite the rain and bullets, to protest against unjust laws. Some people may ask, "The Government has already suspended the legislative amendments in June and formally withdrew the bill in September, but we are still demonstrating, are we not being unreasonable?" I am sure your Honour has heard of the adage "Justice delayed is justice denied". When more than a million people took to the streets to express their discontent peacefully, the Lam administration ignored them and instead acted arbitrarily, brutally trampling on the wishes of the people of Hong Kong, resulting in endless arguments and even confrontations. After so many conflicts and painful experiences, the so-called moratorium is no longer meaningful. We only know better: without democracy, we cannot even have basic human rights!

In this case, although we did not instigate or commit acts of violence, I believe that in the eyes of the prosecution and the court, the violence on the day of the incident can still be counted against us, based on the August 18 and October 1 case. And now I must ask - If Hong Kong had a fair and just universal election, and the public could directly veto laws they did not approve of at the Legislative Council, then how could the violent clashes of 2019 have come about? If the violence we see is so heinous, how do we feel about the institutional violence that insists on the imposition of draconian laws even after millions of people have taken to the streets? If we cannot accept violent rebellion, how can we remain silent in the face of even greater and more oppressive institutional violence? The true and frequent violence is the kind of violence that ignores people's demands, that tramples on their opinions, that deprives them of their right to express themselves. People who truly hate violence and abhor it cannot accuse violent resistance on the one hand and tolerate institutional violence on the other. If I have to bear the criminal responsibility for the violence caused by the peaceful demonstration, then who should bear the criminal responsibility for the social unrest caused by failed administration?

The roots of society's problems

From a court's point of view, it may be that what happened in 2019 was just a series of social unrest, and that those who broke the law must be held personally accountable. What happened in 2019 was not something that I alone or the defendants could have made possible, and the crux of the social problem was not the 'criminals' but the 'causes of crime'. I understand the concept of " applying severe punishment to a troubled world", but if "decimation" was really the solution, there would not have been more violent rebellions in 2019 after the Mongkok "riot" in 2016 and the heavy sentences handed down to protesters by the Court of Appeal in 2017.

If we do not want social unrest, we must get to the root of the problem and implement the "five demands" step by step, so as to achieve fundamental reforms and win back the hearts of the people. 2019's anti-revision movement is indeed a continuation of 2014's Umbrella Movement, and even though the court may think that both movements are caused by a "perverse wind", I must clarify that the core of both movements is the pursuit of democracy and universal suffrage, and the people being the masters of their own house. In the District Council election on 24 November 2019, which is the closest thing to universal suffrage, nearly 3 million people voted, and the democratic camp won a huge victory, winning majority in 17 District Councils. As canaries in the monetary coal mine, we have repeatedly reminded the government to withdraw the extradition bill and fundamentally reform the system, and the march in Kowloon on 20 October was certainly an opportunity to reflect public opinion. Now, by imposing heavy penalties on us, the court is only punishing public opinion, trapping the canaries in a birdcage, or even stifling them in the palm of their hands, suffocating the freedom of expression.

The importance of persistence

As a result of the crackdown after the mass movement, we lost Apple Daily, the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union, and the Civil Human Rights Front. Many of our democratic leaders and comrades who had contributed to the movement were imprisoned, and many of our friends who had been passionately involved in the movement had been forced to lay low under the threat of the National Security Law. I still believe that the faith of Hong Kong people and the glory of humanity seen in 2019 will remain unchanged. I will never forget the millions of people who braved the rain and the heat to resist tyranny and evil laws, demonstrating our unity of purpose; I will never forget the crowds of people who gave way to ambulances, demonstrating our civility; I will never forget the young people who sacrificed their lives, demonstrating our courage and bravery; I will never forget the silver-haired who took to the streets to protect the youth, demonstrating our care for each other; I will never forget the "five demands" and the 2019 District Council election, demonstrating our rationality and decency.

Your Honour, I have nothing to be ashamed of and no remorse for what I did on that day. It is my great honour to be in prison with my comrades and to be able to walk with the public after my release. If the rule of law were to lose its democratic foundation, the courts would have no choice but to accept the legal restrictions set by the autocratic regime and become a political tool to eliminate dissent at any time. As Lord Hoffmann, a non-permanent overseas judge of the Court of Final Appeal, said, civil disobedience from the conscience has a long and honourable tradition, and history will prove us right. I hope that my comrades in arms who walked with me in protests will keep their faith and live in love and truth in the midst of this difficult time.

Finally, as I did nine years ago, I would like to say something to those who oppose us, borrowing the words of American civil rights leader Reverend Martin Luther King: "We shall match your capacity to inflict suffering by our capacity to endure suffering. We shall meet your physical force with soul force. Do to us what you will, and we shall continue to love you. We cannot in all good conscience obey your unjust laws because noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. Throw us in jail and we shall still love you."

Peace be with me and my family, with Your Honour, and with the people of Hong Kong. There are no thugs, only tyranny; five demands, not one less! To god be the glory and to people be the glory!

The Fifth Defendant
Wong Ho Ming
19 August 2021

張忠謀對半導體供應鏈在地化的致詞引起矚目，我將全文的翻譯，分享給大家：

張忠謀APEC非正式領袖會議致詞全文：（中文在後）

This Informal Retreat has been called to discuss how Asia-Pacific can collaborate to move through the COVID health crisis, and to accelerate the post-COVID economic recovery. Chinese Taipei will address these two topics specifically.
On COVID-19, Chinese Taipei has had an excellent record so far. With a population of 23 million, over the last year and half, and in spite of a recent surge which has now abated, we have had a total of about fifteen thousand infected cases (.07% of the population), and 763 deaths (3 out of one hundred thousand).
We believe that our experience and know-how gained can help other APEC members. We have been, and continue to be willing to help. We have donated masks and other medical supplies to other APEC members in the past and are ready and willing to share our anti-COVID-19 know-how with you.
At the same time, WE NEED HELP! Our vaccination coverage at present is less than 20%. Although the U.S. and Japan have been generous in donating vaccines to us, and our private institutions have succeeded in procuring ten million doses of vaccines, we still need more vaccines, and need them sooner! Most other APEC members need help as well. We must ask for help from the APEC members that possess and produce more vaccines than they themselves need.
On re-vitalizing Post-COVID economy, Chinese Taipei urges free trade among APEC members and in the world, after giving consideration to vital national security needs.
In the past seven decades, free trade has enabled vibrant growth in most APEC economies. Free trade is merely a way in which each APEC economy contributes its own competitive advantage and every APEC member benefits.
Recently, however, we note with concern the tendency to want self-sufficiency or “on-shoring” of semiconductor chips. We must point out that in the past many decades free trade has greatly helped the advance of semiconductor technology. In turn, the ever greater complexity of the technology has caused the supply chain to go “off-shore”.
It would be highly impractical to try to turn back the clock. If it is tried, cost will go up and technology advance may slow. What may happen is that after hundreds of billions and many years have been spent, the result will still be a not-quite-self-sufficient, and high-cost supply chain.
We do recognize national security concerns, and believe that for security applications, a self-sufficient supply chain within one’s own borders is prudent. However, for the much larger civilian market, a supply chain substantially based on free trade system is by far the best approach.
In summary, on COVID-19, Chinese Taipei can help, is ready and willing to help with its know-how, but also needs more vaccines sooner, along with many other APEC members. On Post-COVID economic re-vitalization, Chinese Taipei urges free trade, after giving consideration to vital national security concerns.

（中文翻譯）

此次非正式領袖會議召開的目的是討論亞太地區應如何合作以度過新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）疫情危機，並加速疫後經濟復甦。中華台北將就這兩個議題表達看法。
面對新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）疫情，中華台北迄今維持傑出防疫紀錄。我們有兩千三百萬人口，儘管近期疫情曾一度升溫，但目前業已趨緩，在過去超過一年半的時間中，總確診病例數約為一萬五千例（佔總人口0.07%），其中死亡病例數為763例（約為十萬分之三）。
相信我們在過程中得到的經驗與知識能夠協助其他APEC成員。我們持續地願意提供協助。過去我們曾捐贈口罩與其他醫療物資予其他APEC成員，現在也準備好與你們分享我們抗疫的知識。
同時，我們也需要幫助！目前我們的疫苗注射覆蓋率低於20%。雖然美國與日本已慷慨捐贈疫苗，我們的民間機構也已成功採購一千萬劑，我們仍然需要更多數量的疫苗，而且需要儘快取得！其他多數的APEC成員也需要幫助。我們需要向目前擁有並生產超過他們自身所需疫苗數量的APEC成員尋求協助。
針對疫後經濟復甦，中華台北敦促APEC成員，在考慮重要國家安全需求後，彼此間及與全球進行自由貿易。
在過去70年，自由貿易使多數APEC經濟體蓬勃發展。自由貿易僅是各APEC經濟體貢獻自己的競爭優勢，而其他APEC成員藉此受惠的方法。
然而近來，我們很關切要求「境內」半導體晶片自給自足的趨勢。我們必需指出，過去數十年的自由貿易大幅促進半導體技術發展。因此，越趨複雜的技術致使供應鏈走向「境外」。
試圖讓時光倒流是相當不切實際的，如果嘗試讓時光倒流，不僅成本將會提升以及技術的進步可能放緩。在花費了數千億與許多年的時間之後，結果仍將是無法充分自給自足且成本很高的供應鏈。
我們認同國家安全的顧慮確實存在，也相信針對國安應用，在國境內存有一個能夠自給自足的供應鏈是審慎的作法。然而，針對規模大得許多的民間市場，一個基於自由貿易體系的供應鏈是最好的作法。
總結來說，針對新型冠狀病毒（COVID-19）疫情，中華台北能夠協助，我們也願意、並準備好以自身的知識與經驗提供協助，但也和其他許多APEC成員一樣，需要儘快取得更多疫苗。關於疫後經濟復甦，中華台北敦促在考慮關鍵國家安全需求後，應該採取自由貿易。

Digital Minister and self-taught coding whiz Audrey Tang shares her unconventional life story – from gender identity to hacktivism, why she chose the name “Audrey 唐鳳,” and what conservative anarchism means to her.

Having come of age together with Taiwanese democracy and the Internet, Tang relates how she took her education online after dropping out of junior high. Since then, Tang has striven to make knowledge as accessible, transparent, and collaborative as possible. She explains how open data initiatives (e.g. vTaiwan, g0v) can help citizens build consensus, participate in the legislative process, and ultimately, govern themselves.

Today’s episode is hosted by J.R. Wu - Chief of the Secretariat for INDSR (Institute for National Defense and Security Research) in Taiwan. Wu is a former journalist with nearly two decades of media experience in the US and Asia. She has led news bureaus for Reuters and Dow Jones.



Support us on Patreon:
http://patreon.com/taiwan

Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ghostislandme

SHOW CREDIT

Emily Y. Wu (Producer)
https://twitter.com/emilyywu

JR Wu (Host)

Sam Robbins (Researcher)
https://twitter.com/helloitissam

Alice Yeh (Researcher)

Yu-Chen Lai (Researcher)
https://twitter.com/aGuavaEmoji

A Ghost Island Media production
https://twitter.com/ghostislandme

www.ghostisland.media
MB01O2EJOJJSZK2

Gwhyneth Chen (陳毓襄) is a world-renowned classical pianist who's set to open the 2020/21 season for the NTSO (National Taiwan Symphony Orchestra) on August 29 and 30. Born in Taiwan and trained in the U.S., Ms. Chen is a Pride of Taiwan 台灣之光. Ms. Chen recounts performing for the late President Lee Teng-Hui and chats about the value of music, the importance of practice and staying humble, and what she calls “piano kungfu”.

Ms. Chen's album - a recording of a 75-minute mission-impossible of “Etudes d’execution transcendante” by Franz Liszt - has just been nominated for a Golden Melody for Traditional Arts and Music. We feature three numbers from this album: No. 10, No. 1, and No. 8. More on Ms. Chen on her website: http://www.gwhynethchen.net

Today’s episode is hosted by J.R. Wu - Chief of the Secretariat for INDSR (Institute for National Defense and Security Research) in Taiwan. Wu is a former journalist with nearly two decades of media experience in the US and Asia. She has led news bureaus for Reuters and Dow Jones.

Support us on Patreon:
http://patreon.com/taiwan

Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/ghostislandme

SHOW CREDIT

Emily Y. Wu (Producer / Editing)
https://twitter.com/emilyywu

Sam Robbins (Researcher)
https://twitter.com/helloitissam

Thomas Lee (Brand Design)

Ghost Island Media (Production Company)
https://twitter.com/ghostislandme

www.ghostisland.media

The CCP’s national security law in Hong Kong extends beyond the tragic fate of over 7.5 million people. It shows the entire world that the Chinese Communist Regime would forsake its own economy, and rather violate international treaties, than grant Hong Kong its freedom.

In this latest episode, we use Norse mythology’s “Ragnarök” as an analogy for the ultimate showdown between the gods of good and evil, that leads to the apocalypse. However, after Ragnarök, the earth is restored and established anew.

Hong Kong is a war-zone between the evil CCP oppressors and the kind, brave civilian protestors. If Hong Kong falls, what will happen to it and the rest of the world? How is freedom of Hong Kong related to us— all of us? Our host Ben Hedges walks us through the protests during 2019-2020 and gives an in-depth analysis of how Hong Kong parallels Ragnarök.

在中共不顧全球輿論，強行立法下，港版國安法於六月底正式通過。中共為何要在香港強行立法？這對香港乃至全球有何影響？在「老外看香港」最新專題裡，我們採訪了香港、美國、加拿大、英國多位政要和專家，主持人郝毅博並以北歐神話「諸神黃昏」（Ragnarök）做比喻，為大家帶來完整分析，敬請收看！

#香港國安法 #一國兩制 #HongKongProtest

?訂閱老外節目：https://bit.ly/SubscribeLaowai
?捐助我們： http://bit.ly/ToLaoWai

-
?像你爸媽一樣追蹤老外臉書：
✅https://www.facebook.com/benhedgesntd
✅https://www.facebook.com/laowaintd
-
Credits:
Shutterstock Images: https://shutr.bz/2u8Zdp8
Music: Audioblocks.com, epidemicsound.com
Stock Video: Videoblocks.com

©️ 版權所有