香港垃圾會東北前期撥款交足戲

6/27/2014香港垃圾會通過新界東北發展前期工程撥款。

這一場戲各方面都交足戲。之前好似大纜都搞唔埋，又衝擊又拉布，吳亮星扮手騰腳震，黃毓民扮大花面，其它泛民就扮梅香二幫。在外邊的傻仔觀眾入左鏡做臨記幫人抬轎都唔知。

齣戲演到第三幕，各幕後老細叫夠鐘見好即收，留番口碑同叫座力待談收地賠償再玩過。

第三幕劇本寫得好。首先粗口教主發難結果當然就是想主席趕他出場。之後就讓各泛民議員表演向幕後金主交代，到最後要表決時，全體泛民特意離場抗議，讓剩下的建制派以大比數通過議案。這一場戲各方面非常合拍大家落力演出。人人都可以向幕後金主有交代。唯一蝕底收不到戲金的出長毛。他這四星期的皇家飯食得貴左少少。

其實如果泛民真正想拉布至少可以玩多幾日，但收到order要收工，無法啦。不過集體離場抗議等政府議案可以通過 這條橋已經用得太多，觀眾眼睛是雪亮的，再用就會穿崩。下次應該玩逐個抬走這一招。

整齣戲演出最差的是主席吳亮星 。口窒窒，手震震。以前跑馬地有個故事，有一場幕後內定一個新牌仔騎師爆冷，同場由大師傅的大熱馬揹飛，開跑後新牌仔隻馬推極都唔去，後面的大師傅們要拉馬拉到幾乎停。突然新牌仔聽到後面蹄聲大作，眼尾見到大師傅的馬如飛殺上，新牌仔心急之下竟然連馬鞭皆跌落，心想這次慘了，累幕後輸大錢，自己不知會怎個死法。跟著聽見旁邊大師傅鞭如雨下。新牌仔心想這次死了！但怪事發生了！新牌仔的馬突然有如神助大步衝前竟然奪冠。原來大師傅打的是新牌仔隻馬。

星哥就如這個新牌仔，雖最後套戲都叫做演出成功，但就要各泛民出手幫到出面，下次再有大龍鳳，應該換入卿姐壓場。

Box art of Charles Kibler, George Parrish Jr.

From the hay day of Avalon Hill, one of its best box arts, Turning Point : Stalingrad.
The empty eyes, the weary face of a German soldier amid the rubble of Stalingrad under a crimson sky is story telling . Seldom is the individual face expression being put on wargame box art. This is a rare box art showing the face expression of an unknown participant of the battle.

 Around more or less the same time another game from AH,  Russian Front.
The box art captured the expectation of victory on the face of the soldier campaigning alongside a panzer column on the endless steppes of Russia. Veteran wargamers may find the two Stukas quite familiar, they appeared in AH's Third Reich Box Art.

The artists of the box art:
Turning Point : Stalingrad - Charles Kibler, George Parrish Jr.
Russian Front - Charles Kibler, George Parrish Jr., Neil Zimmerer

Avalon Hill was acquired by Hasbro. Many of these excellent games were out of print.
To view more of the works of the above brilliant artists search for Advanced Squad leader module at BoardGameGeek.

Charles Kibler

George I. Parrish, Jr.

Neil Zimmerer

Charles Kibler

George I. Parrish, Jr.

Neil Zimmerer

Charles Kibler

George I. Parrish, Jr.

Neil Zimmerer

十九才子作歷史-2

十九才子又亂噴口水

27/5/2014蘋果名采
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/supplement/columnist/%E9%99%B6%E5%82%91/art/20140527/18733223 

德國政府準備將史圖加市的機場新命名為「隆美爾機場」，引起爭議。
隆美爾又名「沙漠之狐」，是納粹名將，在北非與盟國展開沙漠的坦克戰。隆美爾是納粹時代軍事技藝最精的將軍之一，布局精密，用兵神妙，而且性格並不如納粹其他人如戈林、希姆萊之殘暴，專心打仗，其餘少管，所以連英國的蒙哥馬利也有惺惜之感。
機場改名隆美爾，不是紀念這個將軍，而是隆美爾的兒子。
隆美爾將軍的兒子長大後，當了史圖加的市長，長達二十二年。十四歲那年，他加入過納粹空軍，而且還想參加納粹的青年近衛軍團，但父親反對。
隆美爾沒有活到第二次世界大戰結束。一九四四年七月，德國將領史圖芬堡企圖暗殺希特拉，將炸彈皮包放在指揮部的長桌下，沒有成功。叛黨一網成擒，隆美爾被指參與圖謀。希特拉本來極為欣賞隆美爾的才華，希特拉處決了史圖芬堡，但着令隆美爾服氰化鉀自盡，類似中國皇帝的賜死。
有 一種說法，指隆美爾參與行刺計劃，是盟國的間諜故意放出來的，挑撥成功，終於假手希特拉為盟國除去戰場上此一幾乎無敵的對手。隆美爾在家中被帶走時，兒子 跟父親最後擁抱，從此父親沒有再回來。父親出事後，小隆美爾被空軍開除，但他「愛國」心切──記住，在那時候，叫做愛國──轉投後備軍，幾個月後退任，被 佔領的法軍逮捕成為戰俘。
小隆美爾後來成為蒙哥馬利和美國鐵血將軍巴頓的好朋友。對於昔日戰場敵手的兒子，蒙哥馬利和巴頓提攜照顧，他們知道隆美 爾跟希特拉不是同一夥，或者離間之說，確有其事，感到有點內疚。小隆美爾後來很爭氣，讀書用功，反省納粹罪惡，在冷戰之中，成為捍衛自由的政治家。退休之 後，整理亡父的日記和書信，為父親的一段歷史作證。
只是作證，不是要「平反」，因為納粹的罪惡，隆美爾雖然人性猶存，還是參與了。
小隆美 爾去年秋天逝世，年八十四歲，歐美哀悼。殘酷的「愛國」政治，血腥的戰爭，毀掉了一對優秀的父子。在一個愚昧的世代，因希做了炮灰的德國人，有成千上萬的 精英，只因為聽信了一個撒旦化身的號召。

陶傑 

才子上文謂隆美爾之子得到巴頓的提攜，巴頓在二戰勝利當年即1945年12月 撞車身亡，根本不能有什麼提攜。有落力為隆美爾家奔走的是當年在北非戰場被隆美爾俘虜過的英軍將領 Desmond Young。

而隆美爾被逼服毒自盡是因為調查暗殺案時發現發動政變的將領們計劃成功後由隆美爾掌軍，雖然無證據證明隆美爾有涉政變但就因此為希特拉所忌而要其自盡。

越南並非單是排華那麼簡單

美國幕後黑手，東南亞排華

美國總統奧巴馬出訪東南亞後越南立即派船干擾中國在南海的鑽油台，製造衝突。再藉此發動國內反華示威。但示威變成暴民衝擊中港臺韓日星等外商的工廠。越南雖然經濟開放但仍是共產黨專制政權，在政治上控制嚴密。這一次示威如無政府安排根本不可能一日之間各地大量民眾一致行動。但奇怪的是不單中國廠商受襲，台商你可以說是華人所以受牽連，但連與越南政府眉來眼去的日本和同是東盟的星加坡工廠亦受攻擊就有點奇怪。

會不會是越共內部有矛盾，有人因勢利導借此搞事將政敵拉下台。情況就像當年中共保守派借學生運動搞大成六四事件將改革派一網打盡一樣。

中越交鋒遲早出事，投資越南 只能短線

而暴動後有華商廠房設備損失慘重，謂不知是否要繼續在越投資 。這條數很易計。中越衝突一定會越來越熱。如果你之前在越的投資早已回本，那就算算重新投入重整廠房要多久要涉及多少資金，短期內能否復產，要多久方能回本，如果答案是等如重新設立，或是要三年以上方可回本，那當然跑去較少風險的地方重新開始過。做生產的都知道，有時從新再生產一件東西會比翻修更有效率。就算你這一次僥幸逃過一劫，亦宜居安思危，開始部署分散投資並將貴重及難重置的設備遷走，預防排華風潮再起一鍋端。當然勞工密集只要求簡單的機械的工序仍可留在當地，吃盡其低工資的優勢。

華人勤奮為東南亞土著針對

二戰後東南亞各地久不久就發生排華。就算是在當地土生土長的華裔亦只能淪為二等公民。不要相信當地政府的承諾和政策。印尼年1965排華，到了1998又排華。馬來亞在1969年排華，到現在馬來西亞仍然有針對華裔國民的法律，而且有越來越重的趨勢。
華人勤奮喜儲蓄故為當地人妒嫉，加上當地法律歧視華裔，華裔長期為次等公民但生活上又比當地原居民好，故此當政府管治上有任何不穩定就會發動排華轉移壓力。有人謂排華會影響當地經濟，但如果當政者的權位都危在旦夕，如果排華可以保有自己目前的地位，管他什麼經濟不經濟。1960年代當年馬來亞印尼排華後當地人興奮過後發覺平時在街角賣雜貨的華人小店全部燒光搶光殺光，突然間連想買一紙角米都沒法。那時土人們有沒有反省？但人民是善忘的，事過境遷後，眼紅症又會從心底爬出來。
好像這一次越南排華，有工人將自己任職的廠房燒掉和將生產設備搶走後竟然厚著臉皮哭著問東主何時可以復工一樣。下一次排華這個工人一定又會第一時間燒工廠的。

PUTIN’S SPEECH AT THE 43RD MUNICH CONFERENCE ON SECURITY 31 AĞUSTOS 2007

Thank you very much dear Federal Chancellor, Mr. Teltschik, ladies and gentlemen. I am truly grateful to be invited to such a conference that has assembled politicians, military officials, entrepreneurs and experts from more than 40 nations.

This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to my colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is just a conference. And I hope Mr. Teltschik will not turn on the red light over there after the first minutes of my speech.

It is well known that international security comprises a scope much wider than the issues relating to military and political stability. Its scope includes the stability of the global economy, overcoming poverty, economic security and developing a dialogue between civilizations.

This universal and inseparable character of security is expressed as the basic principle that “security for one is security for all”. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said during the first days of World War II “When peace is broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”

These words remain typical today. The global crises and global responsibility that are the themes of our conference exemplifies this.

Only two decades ago, the world was ideologically and economically divided, and it was the huge strategic potential of two superpowers that ensured global security.

This global competition brought the sharpest economic and social problems to the agenda of the international community and the world. And, just like in any war, the Cold War left us with live ammunition, figuratively speaking. I am referring to ideological stereotypes, double standards and other reflections of the way of thinking that belonged to the Cold War bloc.

The unipolar world that had been proposed after the Cold War did not take place either.

The history of humanity has certainly gone through unipolar periods and witnessed aspirations to world supremacy. But what hasn’t happened in world history?

However, what is a unipolar world? You might embellish this term as much as you like, but at the end of the day it still means one type of situation, one power, one center of force, one master.

It means a world in which there is one master. And as a result, this is fatal not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.

And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.

As Russia, we are constantly being taught about democracy. But, for some reason, those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.

I think that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible at the present day. And this is not only because if there was individual leadership in today’s world, then the military, political and economic resources would not suffice. What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because intrinsically there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.

In addition, what is happening in today’s world and what we have just started to discuss is a tentative concept, the concept of a unipolar world.

So what are the results?

Unilateral and often illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves: wars and local and regional conflicts have not diminished. Mr. Teltschik mentioned this very gently. The number of people getting lost or even dying in these conflicts is more than before. Quite more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost unlimited use of force -military force- in international relations. This force is dragging the world into an permanent conflicts. As a result, we do not have the strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political solution also becomes impossible.

We see that the basic principles of international law are increasingly disdained every day. And in fact, independent legal norms are getting more similar to a state’s legal system. This state and, of course, first and foremost the USA, has overstepped its national borders in every aspect. The economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations is a proof of that. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we see that the willpower to resolve a given problem according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate is becoming dominant.

Of course this is an extremely dangerous situation. As a result of that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this -no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates the race for armament.

The supremacy of this power inevitably encourages some countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, some new significant threats -though they were known before- have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.

I am convinced that the time has come for us to seriously think about the structure of global security.

While doing this, we must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests of all participants in the international dialogue. Especially since the international landscape is so varied and changes so quickly, those changes are experienced as dynamic developments in many countries and regions.

Dear Federal Chancellor already mentioned this. The combined GDP measured vis-à-vis purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is greater than that of the United States. With a similar calculation, the GDP of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will increase even more in the future.

There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centers of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.

In connection with this the role of multilateral diplomacy is significantly increasing. The need for principles such as openness, transparency and predictability in politics is uncontested, and the use of force should be a really exceptional measure; like the use of death penalty in the judicial systems of certain states.

However, today we are witnessing the opposite situation; namely, the countries that forbid the death penalty even for murderers and other dangerous criminals are easily participating in military operations that are difficult to consider legitimate. In fact, people are killed in these conflicts - hundreds and thousands of civilians.

But do we have the means to oppose those threats? Certainly we do. It is sufficient to look at recent history. Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime, a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why don’t we start bombing and shooting now at every opportunity? Is it the case, in the absence of a threat that can affect us, we lose our political culture and our respect for democratic values and law?

I am convinced that the only mechanism that can make decisions about using military force as a last resort is the Charter of the United Nations. And in this context, either I misunderstood what the Italian Minister of Defense just said or what he said was incomplete. In any case, I understood that the use of force can only be legitimized if the decision is taken by NATO, the EU, or the UN. If he really does think so, then we have different perspectives. Or I didn’t hear correctly. The use of force can only be considered legitimate if the decision is approved by the UN. And we do not need to substitute NATO or the EU for the UN. When the UN truly unites the forces of the international community and can really react to events in various countries, when we will leave behind this disregard for international law, then the situation might change. Otherwise the situation will simply result in a dead end, and the number of serious mistakes will be multiplied. In parallel to this, the international law should gain a universal character both in the conception and application of its norms.

And one must not forget that democratic political activities should be discussed and should go through a painstaking decision-making process.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

The potential danger deriving from the destabilization of international relations is connected with the stagnation on the disarmament issue.

Russia supports the renewal of dialogue on this important question.

It is important to preserve the international legal framework for reducing weapons and thus to ensure continuity in the process of reducing nuclear weapons.

Together with the USA, we agreed to reduce our nuclear strategic missile capabilities to up to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads by 31 December 2012. Russia intends to completely fulfill the obligations it has undertaken. We hope that our partners will also act in a transparent way and do not reserve some superfluous nuclear warheads for hard times. And if today the new USA Secretary of Defense declares that the USA will not hide these superfluous weapons in warehouse or, as one might say, under a pillow, then I suggest that we all rise and applaud this declaration. This declaration would be a very important step.

Russia strictly adheres to and intends to further adhere to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the multilateral supervision regime for missile technologies. The principles incorporated in those documents are universal ones.

In connection to this, in the 1980s the USSR and the USA signed an agreement on destroying numerous small- and medium-range missiles but these documents do not have a universal character.

Today many other countries have these missiles, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, India, Iran, Pakistan and Israel. Many countries are working on these systems and planning to incorporate them as part of their weapon stock. And only the USA and Russia bear the responsibility to not produce such weapon systems.

It is obvious that under those conditions we must rethink about ensuring our own security.

At the same time, it is impossible to prevent the appearance of new, high-tech weapons. In fact, a time will come when new areas will be found in outer space to fight. Star wars is no longer a fantasy, it has become a reality. In the middle of the 1980s our American partners were already able to intercept their own satellites.

In Russia’s opinion, the militarization of outer space could have unpredictable consequences for the international community, and provoke nothing less than the beginning of a nuclear era. And we have made more than one attempts that will take the first step for preventing the use of weapons in outer space.

Today I can gladly tell you that we have prepared the project of an agreement on the prevention of armament in outer space. And in the near future it will be sent to our partners as an official motion. Let us work on this together.

Plans to expand certain elements of the anti-missile defense system to Europe cannot help but disturb us. Who needs the next step, in this case, an inevitable arms race? I deeply doubt that Europeans themselves do.

None of the so-called problem countries have missile weapons with a range of about five to eight thousand kilometers that can pose a threat to Europe. And in the near future, this will not happen and is not even foreseeable. And any hypothetical launch of, for example, a North Korean rocket to American territory through Western Europe is against the science of missiles. As we say in Russia, it would be like using the right hand to reach the left ear.

And here in Germany I cannot help but mention the pitiable condition of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe.

The Adapted Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe was signed in 1999. It took into account a new geopolitical reality, namely the elimination of the Warsaw bloc. Seven years have passed, however only 4 states have ratified this document, including the Russian Federation.

NATO countries openly declared that they will not ratify this treaty, including the provisions on flank defense (on deploying a certain number of armed forces in the flank zones), until Russia closed its military bases from Georgia and Moldova. Our army is leaving Georgia according to an accelerated schedule. We resolved the problems with Georgia, as everybody knows. We still have 1,500 servicemen in Moldova that are carrying out peacekeeping operations and protecting warehouses with ammunition left over from Soviet period. We constantly discuss this issue with Mr. Solana and he knows our position. We are ready to further work in this direction.

But what is happening at the same time? In the meantime, the so-called flexible frontline American bases with up to five thousand men in each are formed. As a result, NATO places its frontline forces on our borders, and we continue to strictly fulfill the treaty obligations and do not react to these actions at all.

I think it is obvious that NATO’s expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the Alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask; who is this expansion against? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee”. Where are these guarantees?

The stones and concrete blocks of the Berlin Wall have long been distributed as souvenirs. But we should not forget that the fall of the Berlin Wall was a historic choice “that was also made by our people” in favor of democracy, freedom, openness and a permanent partnership with all the members of the big European family.

And now they are imposing new dividing lines and walls on us -these walls may be virtual, but nevertheless they separate and cut through our continent. And is it possible that we will once again have many years and decades, as well as several generations of politicians, to dissemble and dismantle these new walls?

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

We are definitely in favor of strengthening the regime of disarmament. The present international legal principles allow us to develop technologies to manufacture nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes. And many countries, based on many valid reasons, want to create their own nuclear energy as a basis for their energy independence. However we are also aware that these technologies can quickly be transformed into nuclear weapons.

This situation can create serious international tensions. Iranian nuclear program is a concrete example for this. And if the international community does not find a reasonable solution for resolving this, the world will continue to suffer similar, destabilizing crises because there are other countries ahead of Iran. We all know this. We will always fight against the threat of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Last year Russia took the first step of establishing international centers for the enrichment of uranium. We are open to the possibility that such centers not only be established in Russia, but also in other countries where civil nuclear energy is legal. Countries that want to develop their nuclear energy can guarantee that they produce fuel in these centers. And those centers of course operate under strict IAEA supervision.

The recent steps taken by American President George W. Bush are similar to the Russian proposals. I consider that Russia and the USA are objectively and equally interested in strengthening the regime of the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their deployment. It is precisely our countries, with leading nuclear and missile capabilities that must act as leaders in developing new, stricter non-proliferation measures. Russia is ready for such work. We are engaged in consultations with our American friends.

In general, we should talk about establishing a whole system of political motivation and economic stimuli whereby it would not be in states’ interests to establish their own capabilities in the nuclear fuel cycle but they would still have the opportunity to develop nuclear energy and strengthen their energy capabilities.

In connection to this let me talk about international energy cooperation in more detail. Dear Federal Chancellor also spoke about this briefly. In the energy sector Russia intends to create uniform market principles and transparent conditions for all. It is obvious that energy prices must be determined by the market instead of being the subject of political speculation, economic pressure or blackmail.

We are open to cooperation. Foreign companies participate in all our major energy projects. According to data from different sources, up to 26 percent of the oil extraction in Russia, and please think about this figure, belongs to foreign capital. Find me an example; try to find me a similar example where Russian business participates extensively in key economic sectors in western countries. There are no such examples.

I would like to remind the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those Russia makes abroad. The parity is about fifty to one. And here you have an obvious example of the openness and stability of the Russian economy.

Economic security is the sector in which all must adhere to uniform principles. We are ready to compete fairly.

For this reason, more and more opportunities are appearing in the Russian economy. Experts and our western partners are evaluating these changes. As such, Russia’s OECD sovereign credit rating improved and Russia passed from the fourth to the third group. And today in Munich I would like to use this occasion to thank our German colleagues for their help in the above decision.

In addition, as you know, the process of Russia joining the World Trade Organization (WTO) has reached its final stage. I would point out that during long, difficult talks we heard words about freedom of speech, free trade, and equal possibilities more than once but, for some reason, exclusively in reference to the Russian market.

And there is another important topic that directly affects global security. Today many people talk about poverty. What is actually happening in this globe? On the one hand, financial resources, and sometimes substantial financial resources, are allocated for programs to help the world’s poorest countries. But, to be honest, as most of us know, those aids are linked with the development of the companies of the donor country. And on the other hand, developed countries at the same time keep their agricultural subsidies and limit some countries’ access to high-tech products.

And we can characterize those situations not only as distributing charity aids and also preventing economic backwardness but also making profits from those. The increasing social tension in depressed regions inevitably results in radicalism and marginality; feeds terrorism and local conflicts. And if all this happens, let’s say, in a region such as the Middle East, which the world do not treat fairly, then there is the risk of global destabilization.

It is obvious that the world’s leading countries should see this threat. And for that reason they should build a more democratic, fairer system that would give everyone the chance and the possibility to develop in global economic relations.

Dear ladies and gentlemen, speaking at the Conference on Security Policy, it is impossible not to mention the activities of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). As known, this organization was created to test (I shall emphasize this) all aspects of security: military, political, economic, humanitarian and, in general, the relations between these aspects.

What do we see happening today? We see that this balance is clearly destroyed. People are trying to transform the OSCE into a simple instrument promoting political interests of one or a group of countries. And this task is also accomplished by the OSCE’s bureaucratic system which is absolutely not connected with the founder states in any way. Decision-making procedures and the involvement of the non-governmental organizations are serving this task. These organizations are legally independent but they are purposefully financed and therefore kept under control.

According to the founding documents, in terms of its humanitarian aspect the OSCE is designed to assist country members in observing international human rights issues upon request. This is an important task. We support this. But this does not mean interfering in the internal affairs of other countries, and more importantly not imposing a regime that determines how these countries should live and develop.

It is obvious that such interferences do not contribute to the development of democratic states. On the contrary, it makes them dependent and, as a result, politically and economically unstable.

We hope that the OSCE is governed by its primary tasks and relations built with sovereign states based on respect, trust and transparency.

Dear ladies and gentlemen!

In conclusion I would like to emphasize the following. We -personally, I - very often hear appeals from our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.

In relation to this I would like to remind a small thing. There is not much need for you to encourage us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has always followed an independent foreign policy.

We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we know quite well what kind of a transition that the world is going through, and we have a realistic sense of our opportunities and potential. But, of course, we would like to collaborate with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in establishing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.

Thank you for your attention.

蘋果日報替寶藥黨賣廣告

死不悔改寶藥黨

蘋果日報2013年4月9日報導

專欄唱好瞬即出貨　張士佳被釘牌
股評人犯規首被罰

【本報訊】股評人借專欄唱好股份出貨被釘牌，恐成案例。證監會昨宣佈，暫時吊銷元大寶來證券業務及商品發展總監張士佳的牌照，為期30個月，罰款50萬 元。證監指張士佳作為證監會持牌人，在報紙專欄唱好股份後，利用隱藏證券戶口進行交易，造成利益衝突。翻查紀錄，張士佳為近年首位犯規股評人，未來必成案 例。　
記者：梁嘉麒　林　靜

根據證監會《操守準則》16.9，持牌分析員如透過大眾媒體（報紙、雜誌、電視台及電台等），為股份作出評論或建議時，均須披露其姓名、持牌情況及實際持 倉情況。如未有作出申報利益，已屬違法行為。對於證監的判罰，張士佳表示不排除會上訴。而由即日起，張士佳於《蘋果日報》的專欄將會暫停。
證監發 出新聞稿，指張士佳於2009年3月至2010年3月期間，向前僱主華富嘉洛隱暪其妻子於該公司開立證券戶口，故透過該戶口進行的交易，並無按《操守準 則》的規定受華富嘉洛監察。張士佳其後透過其妻子戶口買入股票，並於其《蘋果日報》專欄對相關股票作出有利評論或推介，並於專欄刊出不久後出售股份，行為 與其所作的推介相反，構成利益衝突。

妻子持股　涉虛假聲明

證監又指，張士佳曾於兩日三度聲明其本人及客戶並無持有其專欄所提及的股票，但實際上由其妻子戶口持有股份，涉及虛假及失實聲明。當局又提到，張士佳一名 負責為專欄擬稿的助手指，張曾多次要求稍後時間才可在專欄提及若干股票，原因是張及其客戶尚未買入那些股票。
證監表示，張士佳的行為違反《操守準則》三項一般原則，包括誠實及公平、勤勉盡責及利益衝突，更指其行為令人嚴重質疑其是否有能力進行有關受規管活動，其信譽、品格及可靠程度亦令人置疑；至於罰款50萬元，與他透過相關交易獲得的利潤相若。
張 士佳回覆本報查詢時承認有漏報，但強調沒有刻意隱瞞，只是一時疏忽。他表示，助手擬好的稿件向來必先由他批改，再安排刊登日期，並非刻意要求助手推遲。再 者，涉事賬戶是在其任職公司以妻子名義開戶，「如果係（刻意隱瞞），我點會用太太個戶口。」

辯稱漏報　不排除上訴

他稱，申報事宜由助手處理，且由於買賣操作由系統安排，相關期內買賣次數達4,000次，當中僅25次漏報，是一時大意。他又指，曾經要求證監會安排與證 人當面對質，但遭拒絕，認為調查對他不公平，不排除上訴。
對上一次有持牌代表因涉及利益衝突而被釘牌，要追溯至2005年；時任順隆證券行持牌代 表黃穎輝，被禁止在五年內重投業界。證監發現他於03年12月至04年4月期間，買賣大量他為順隆編製的研究報告中所涉及的股份，出現利益衝突。    
 詳見下面的連結：
http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/financeestate/art/20130409/18221715 


蘋果日報財經專欄作者張士佳被證監譴責利用專欄唱好手上股票後沽出獲利。在其停牌 前不久可能是心虛張士佳曾在其專欄稱發覺每次在專欄提到的股票當日早上必升云云。出事後張士佳接受蔡東豪訪問自稱並無犯法只是"波打手"。但那有如此湊巧會被足球踢到手二十五次。又辯稱利益申報由助手負責。但張士佳的助手怎樣會知悉張太的持倉？

靜了幾個月，想來大家都忘記了此事，最近張士佳又有新攪作 。首先是在主場新聞的專欄上大吹傳統分析無效論，再在蘋果日報大吹自己研究出一套軟件可以追蹤到大戶的部署。
 (見2014年3月24日蘋果日報Trader物語 :
 http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/financeestate/art/20140324/18666531  ) 

說到主場新聞這裡想岔開一筆。蘋果日報一向的作風是語不驚人死不休是不是事實不重要，所以招來騙子專欄。但主場新聞和創辦人蔡東豪等人一向一皆與人一個正面的知識分子印象，這一次為何要用一個騙子的專欄來破壞主場新聞的形象，真是令人想不通。你可以說是給人家一個自新的機會，但近期這個人在吹噓自己軟件的神效時就應該醒覺自己在給人家利用。

當然自吹自擂是自己的軟件多神效是不夠的。之後再找同報專欄作者利世民在專欄吹捧張士佳這個軟件怎樣怎樣厲害。鱔稿見2014/4/29的利字當頭專欄：
 http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/financeestate/art/20140429/18703861

肥佬黎這一次給手下借艇割禾。給人家登鱔稿無收錢。下走並不是說利世民而是說蘋果日報財經版的編輯如果不是大意怎會一而再再而三替一個曾在蘋果日報騙讀者的人再出鱔稿。

而至於所謂必勝炒股秘笈和街頭的寶藥黨沒有分別。大家只要想一想，如果這個軟件如此神效為什麼張大師不留作自用而要公開。自己炒它幾轉不是已經變成李嘉誠嗎？為何要益那些非親的非故的人？

十九才子作歷史

十九才子又亂噴口水

軍國當權

 日本當年發動太平洋戰爭，是東京的文官政府，制約不住軍方的坐大，釀成的悲劇。
最先是關東軍在中國東北製造事端，炸死張作霖，扶持溥儀做滿洲國皇帝，為日本吞併了一大塊殖民疆土，東北的礦藏，從此可以任日本開採。
由愛國的角度，此舉並非侵略，而是保障大和民族崛起的生存權。軍方有大功於國家，然後「七七事變」再侵略華北，繼而「八一三淞滬會戰」，國軍主力戰敗，南京陷落。
中國半壁河山，前綫的軍人輕易到手，日本首相在東京，已經無力駕馭。這時軍方內部分裂，陸軍主張由東北進侵西伯利亞，以蘇聯為目標；海軍主張南下，侵略南洋，奪取英、法、荷蘭的殖民地。
國府由武漢再西遷重慶，此時所有港口，已為日本控制，對外物資，只靠一條滇緬公路由印度緬甸交通。英國的邱吉爾政府卻封鎖了滇緬公路，向中國背後插一刀。
本來邱吉爾可以此與日本秘密談判：我給你封滇緬公路，交換不可進兵南洋，你向北打蘇聯。日本如果不答應，英國不封路。
但邱吉爾對遠東事務沒有經驗，也不夠老謀深算。結果滇緬公路白封了，海軍得勢，照樣進攻南洋，英國的星馬殖民地相繼陷落，日本還與昂山素姬的父親昂山合作，一起反英，邱吉爾栽了大觔斗。
相反，蘇聯的史太林卻更聰明。日本的海陸軍爭權，日皇裕仁沒有主意。日皇反對發動太平洋戰爭，認為太冒險。此時決定性的態度，處於日本外相松岡洋右。
松 岡訪問德國，會見納粹德國外長列賓斯托普。此時德國早發動攻擊蘇聯，久攻未下，松岡問：日本可以在東線攻西伯利亞，與德國一起咬蘇聯。但德國外長在松岡面 前誇口不必幫忙，德國必可打勝。松岡繼而訪問莫斯科，史太林拉着簽署日蘇互不侵犯協議，還熱情送到火車站，親自擁抱松岡，在他耳邊說：「我也是亞洲人 呀。」
松岡心軟了，回到東京，贊成日本不打西伯利亞，改而南侵。然後海軍主導，轟炸珍珠港，同日侵略香港，南進馬來和新加坡。
日本瘋了。以後的事，不必再論。軍方的瘋狂，令日本遭到原爆之劫，你看，這就是軍國主義膨脹之後令一個民族付出的代價。 2014/4/23

生果日報十九才子2014/4/23專欄又亂噴口水。講風花雪月可以亂寫，但涉及歷史就應該查一查書。1938年日本朝鮮軍第十九師團趁史太林對紅軍將領大清洗軍中群龍無首士氣低沉，在張鼓峰沙草峰攻打蘇軍。雙方混戰一場，勝負不分。但日軍前線將領虛報大勝。次年1939年，再在諾門罕挑起戰鬥。蘇軍調來朱可夫和機械化軍進行立體戰，將關東軍空軍打殘，日軍鎮山之寶的裝甲第一師團打剩骨架，小松原師團全殲，關東軍的本錢幾乎賠光。在關東軍苦思如何打回面子之時，傳來德蘇簽訂互不侵犯條約，令當時一心想與德結成反共聯盟的平沼內閣倒台。日方成機與蘇談和。領教過蘇軍厲害知道以日本的科技和國力根本打不過蘇聯，日軍於是轉為準備南進，發動太平洋戰爭。
在1936年二二六兵變後儘管兵變失敗但卻造成打敗叛軍的將領掌權，從此日本內閣由軍人掌權，作為一個文官當時的松岡外相只是按軍人政府指示進行和談，根本並不存在什麼日外相松岡心軟促成南侵。