梁振英政府和北京諸公們，常常都指有外國勢力，滲透入香港試圖攪亂香港，《雨傘運動》期間 梁振英 與 黨報，更是點名美國駐港總領事 白千福 也有一手。
6.17 政改法案提交立法會表決，辯論一整天後明天待續。6.18 繼續，據聞 曾鈺成 主席預計黃昏過後，才完成所有議員發言，但可以伸延會議時間，有足夠時間表決。建制派一向不欲表決時間遲過下班時間，致令更多的上班族 “反政改” 群眾，出現立法會示威區。
於是約在 6.18的中午 12過半，連建制派老大哥們等等重量級人物如 譚耀宗 等人都尚未發言，便向秘書停止排隊發言，準備提早表決議案，更臨急電召因病沒有坐在議事廳的老牌議員 劉皇發 速來加入投票。
萬料不到是意慶闌珊的 林鄭月娥、袁國強、譚志源，臨尾尾的三個總結發言，都是異常的簡短精要，三人發言完畢曾主席唯有按程序，宣布投票表決開始，鳴鐘 5分鐘。
本來足夠時間，可以等到 劉皇發 趕回立法會，而在三人組發言於總結之後，就沒可能再向主席要求，酌情再重啟議員發言。急得如鍋上螞蟻的某議員，唯有求助於民建聯。
臨急智生 民建聯黨鞭，率領全部建制派議員步出議事廳，好讓在會內人數不過半，組不成立法會 quorum 法定人數，如此 曾鈺成 主席便可以宣布鳴鐘 15分鐘等候 buy time 。。。。。。。
怎知尚有 9位同伴未有及時察覺，沒有 follow 致誤戎機，結果表決得出 33位議員離席，出席：37 讚成 8 vs 28反對。
為何 林鄭月娥、袁國強、譚志源，臨尾尾的總結發言異常簡短精要，沒有以往一貫的詳盡，針對遂個民主派議員批評逐一反駁，尤其是 林鄭月娥 只是一句：公道自在人心 無愧於心！
至於梁振英政府和北京諸公們，常常都指有外國勢力，滲透入香港試圖攪亂香港。今次 33人甩轆事件，究竟有沒有外國勢力特工，曾經干擾 劉皇發 的座駕製造人為的尖沙咀塞車？
只須要新一哥 La Salle仔 一聲指令，翻開所有監察交通的天眼 CCTV 記錄，便可以抽出鐵一般證據，若 “時機合適” 便可供諸於世，指責外國勢力干預中國內政。
33位尊貴的議員在感受北京號召 “一個也不能少”，要完完整整全體 41名齊齊出席投出個全讃成票，於是決定等埋 劉皇發 的良好願望，卻慘被 “蝦碌” 的事故。把責任歸咎是外國勢力介入破壞，並且可以證明駐港解放軍沒有干預香港事務，讓 33名忠精報國的議員可以釋懷皆大歡喜，這豈不在敗部中取得最理想的下台階。
彭博的有關政改表決報導：One Sick Lawmaker Makes Vote on Hong Kong Democracy a Landslide
嗜悲 卻想加多個英文字成為：One Sick Mind Lawmaker Makes Vote on Hong Kong Democracy a Landslide
【Bloomberg】After nine months of division in Hong Kong that saw protesters clash with police, the city’s decision on whether to accept a China-backed plan for picking its chief executive ended with 28 lawmakers voting against and 8 for.
A widely expected narrow defeat of the plan in Hong Kong’s Legislative Council became a blowout when a 78-year old lawmaker in favor of the proposal fell ill and his compatriots walked out of the session in a failed bid to delay the ballot. While the incident wouldn’t have made a difference since the 28 opposing votes put the two-thirds majority needed for the plan past reach, it does mean records will show an overwhelming rejection.
“We didn’t want that result,” said Tam Yiu-chung, a lawmaker who supported the plan that would have required candidates for chief executive be approved by a committee. Protesters opposed the plan because they say it gave China control over the elections. Thursday’s walkout failed because it wasn’t adequately coordinated and “communication wasn’t great,” Tam told reporters.
Confusion reigned over the legislative chamber at mid-day when about half the members left in an attempt to force a 15-minute recess so that Lau Wong-fat, the unwell lawmaker, could return in time to vote. Legislative Council President Jasper Tsang asked the clerk if there was a quorum after requests for recess were shouted at him. The clerk made an inaudible response, the recess was rejected and the vote taken.
Afterwards, lawmakers who’d walked out of the vote attempted to explain themselves to reporters gathered outside. Nearby, some of those who voted against the plan took time to pose for pictures with yellow umbrellas, symbols of last year’s protests that occupied key parts of the city for 79 days.
“History is full of accidents, and the results showed history is on the side of democracy,” Lee Cheuk-yan, head of the Labour Party, said amid cheering supporters.
彭博的新聞更附加了解釋了 香港的所謂自治 Hong Kong’s Autonomy
【Bloomberg】Hong Kong is an island of free speech and civil liberties in an authoritarian sea. It is not, however, a democracy. Hong Kong citizens have never had the power to choose their top leader, neither as part of China since 1997 nor as an outpost of the British Empire for 156 years before that. The prospect of the first direct election of a chief executive in 2017 has increased the tension between Hong Kong’s yearning for autonomy and China’s for loyalty.
A tumultuous season of pro-democracy protests fizzled to a close at the end of 2014. With the authorities resolute and public support waning, protesters dribbled away in December without achieving their goals: free popular elections and the resignation of Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying. Police cleared away the residue of protest sites where thousands of citizens had poured into the streets in the summer and fall, blocking roads, choking on tear gas and demanding an end to what they said was China’s increased political interference. China had previously pledged to give Hong Kong citizens a leader chosen by “universal suffrage upon nomination by a broadly representative nominating committee” starting in 2017. On Aug. 31 its legislature reiterated that candidates must be screened by a committee, which would give Beijing an effective veto over anyone viewed as unfriendly to the central government. China also asserted the right to interpret Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, the Basic Law, citing it as justification for its view that candidates are to be nominated by committee rather than directly by voters and must be loyal to the Communist Party. Hong Kong’s legislature rejected a China-backed voting plan on June 18, 2015 and Leung indicated that no further political reform would be considered.
The 1984 Sino-British power transfer agreement specified that China would give Hong Kong a “high degree of autonomy” for 50 years under a principle the Chinese call “one country, two systems.” The top official, however, was to be chosen by an intricate nominating process that, in the view of democracy advocates, gives few citizens a voice and puts Beijing in control. It hasn’t worked out well: The chief executives have lacked popular support, with the first one, Tung Chee-hwa, departing after protests and his successor, Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, amid financial scandal. In 2007, China promised open elections starting in 2017 and debate ensued about how they should be conducted. On July 15, 2014 the Hong Kong administration published a document it called a “consultation” with residents, finding that a majority agreed with China that candidates should be nominated by a committee; each should show that he is someone “who loves the country and loves Hong Kong.”
Student protest leaders said they plan to broaden their struggle for free elections and claim to have emboldened citizens to demand democracy. Though the public tired of the occupation, the students claim there is still support for universal suffrage that meets what they call “international standards.” Pro-Beijin groups argue that China never promised more than the limited form of universal suffrage it offered, and that the occupation damaged Hong Kong’s rule of law and standing in the international financial community. China’s wariness of Hong Kong’s democracy movement is consistent with its wider push to assert regional control and to redress the humiliation it says it suffered after ceding the city to Britain upon losing the first Opium War in 1841. The pro-democrats argue that increasing Chinese meddling in Hong Kong’s affairs violates China’s pledge to respect its principle of “one country, two systems.”
彭博的記者都很識 do，已經就著來寫這篇新聞報導，總好過有一些外國通訊社，要睇北京面色， 唔敢 cover “甩轆” 這場 喜劇 farce 感十足的： 2017 political reform ending 政改終結。
One Sick Lawmaker Makes Vote on Hong Kong Democracy a Landslide 彭博
Hong Kong’s Autonomy 彭博
美國人的 Unintentional to play a part
《For your attention 懇請垂注》
Recently，Blogger spam filter has become overly sensitive， your comment may automatically relocate into the spam locker temporarily，awaiting for my discretion. I shall visit the spam locker frequently to unlock your comment，please remain patient.
若閣下的留言突然消失，此乃博格的自動過濾系統過份敏感，留言被掃入廢言儲物箱，需要 嗜悲 審查後作出裁決。愚弟定必每天巡邏多次，儘早釋放返回留言板，謝謝你的耐性。
瘋人瘋語「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問，一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家，如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家，且既沒諮詢當地公民，又沒給予他們民主的前景，好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說，奇怪，香港提出最理智問題的人，竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報 “During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times
Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation
Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ？