Are you Helping or Harming Us?
──The Serious Question to You American Politicians
你們是在幫我們還是害我們?──對美國政客嚴肅的提問
“Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious question to you American politicians, including those in the Trump administration and in the Congress. As the spokesperson for the New Party, one of Taiwan’s political parties, and also a young man who has lived in Taiwan for more than 32 years since my birth, I should tell you that the answer decides our future without doubt. In other words, the very fact I must confirm is whether you support Taiwan independence instead of the One-China policy or just deploy Taiwan as your pawn to bargain with Beijing. To be honest, as you always take it for granted to sacrifice others for your benefits, it is quite important for us to make sure in advance.
「你們是在幫我們還是害我們?」這是我對你們美國包括川普政府及國會政客的嚴肅提問。身為台灣新黨發言人,同時也是在台灣從小到大超過三十二年的年輕人,我必須告訴你們,這個問題的答案將直接決定我的未來。換言之,我得先釐清一個事實:到底你們是支持台灣走向獨立,或者只是將台灣拿來作為你們與北京議價的籌碼?老實說,因為你們總是習慣犧牲他人成全自己,我必須先確認你們的意圖。
As we all know, the US Congress usually tends to challenge China’s sovereignty over Taiwan because of the impact of the military-industrial complex and the lobbies hired by the Taiwan government. The Taiwan Travel Act and the TAIPEI Act are the late instances. However, without the administration’s implementation, these are only lip service. Thus, the administration’s attitude is crucial indeed. So, let’s see the Department of State. As Secretary Pompeo stated last March, the US is now using every tool in its tool kit to prevent China from isolating Taiwan through diplomatic channels. This year, after shifting blames for its neglect of the pandemic prevention by attacking China and the WHO, the Department of State recently expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. The above really triggered my curiosity: The establishment of the US-Taiwan formal diplomatic relations is just the most useful tool, isn’t it? Why does the US not use that? Besides, since Taiwan should become a formal member of the UN before entering the WHO, why does the US not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or the ROC government in Taiwan as the only legal government of China instead of the PRC?
眾所皆知,受到軍工複合體及台灣官方雇用的說客影響,美國國會向來傾向挑戰中國對台灣的主權,最近通過的「台灣旅遊法」及「台北法案」都是如此。然而,沒有行政部門的實施,這些都只是口惠而已。行政部門的態度無疑才是關鍵。以美國國務院的表現來看,國務卿蓬佩奧確實在去年三月就說,美國會使用一切工具箱內的工具「防止中國孤立台灣」。今年以來,在藉由攻擊中國及世衛組織推卸防疫不力的責任後,國務院更表達對台灣加入世衛大會的支持。以上種種讓我不禁好奇:美國自己與台灣建立正式邦交,不就是防止所謂「中國孤立台灣」最好的「工具」?你們為什麼不幹?既然台灣必須在加入世衛組織前先成為聯合國的正式成員,你們為什麼不承認台灣是主權獨立國家,或者承認「中華民國」取代「中華人民共和國」政府代表中國?
The answer to my question seems that your real intention is not to support Taiwan’s real independence but only to trouble Beijing. Just as Pompeo said at a congressional hearing, the Trump administration’s way of viewing the US-Taiwan relations can consider the threat of China’s rise more than the predecessors, which reveals that Taiwan is only a chess piece for Washington to play with Beijing. Furthermore, since the US has no will to have Taiwan as a formal ally, Taiwan is just a pawn you can sacrifice anytime. Consequently, Taiwan must suffer the worsening of cross-strait relations at our own cost while the US just plays Taiwan to bargain with Beijing for your own interests. The outcome is so predictable that Taiwan should go through a depression for its large economic dependence on mainland China which you are unable and unwilling to make up. Besides, we should even consider the most serious situation that a war occurs in the Taiwan Strait. The scenario of Taiwan military is holding on alone within two to three weeks in order to wait for the US military aid. Nevertheless, as the former AIT chairman Richard Bush said, the implied commitment of the US to come to Taiwan’s defense has never be absolute. In other words, we should risk engaging a war with Beijing resulted from your dangerous game, sacrificing our lives for your lies.
你們不幹的理由似乎就是:你們根本沒要支持台灣獨立,而只是拿台灣來給北京出難題。正如蓬佩奧在一場國會聽證會上所說,川普政府看待台美關係的方式,比起過去歷任領導人更能考慮中國崛起對美國的威脅。這句話其實已經透露,台灣只是你們拿來與北京博弈的棋子。當你們從未有心要與台灣正式結盟,台灣也就只是隨時可以拋棄的小卒。如此一來,當你們可以利用台灣獲取你們的利益,台灣卻要自己承擔兩岸關係惡化的代價。後果其實也可預期,那就是以台灣對大陸經濟依賴之深,我們必然要遭受景氣的大蕭條,而這些虧損是你們無力也無意填補的。此外,我們還得考慮最壞的情況,那就是台海爆發戰爭。根據台灣軍方的劇本,我們要自己先撐兩到三個禮拜,然後就要靠你們馳援。然而,前美國在台協會主席卜睿哲已經告訴我們,美國馳援台灣的暗示性承諾從來不能打準。因此,我們等於要為了你們的危險遊戲,冒上與大陸開戰的風險,以我們的生命換來你們的謊言。
As I already told you earlier, the real threat to the US is not China’s rise but the loss of your self-confidence. Moreover, you have weakened the stability across the Taiwan Strait by inciting Taiwan to deny the 1992 consensus and intervening in Taiwan’s campaign last year, which destroys the status quo and your interests indeed. Certainly, as what Secretary Pompeo has told us, “We lied, we cheated, we stole,” how can we bet our future on the US “glory” of lying, cheating, and stealing? In fact, as you once betrayed us in 1978 even though the ROC government in Taiwan and your government was formal alliance then, it is much easier for you today to abandon us when the deal has been done.
正如我之前已經說的,美國面臨的真正威脅不是中國的崛起,而是你們自信的喪失。更有甚者,透過煽動台灣否定九二共識及介入台灣去年的大選,你們已挑起了台海的緊張,既破壞現狀同時也傷害你們的利益。我們更記得蓬佩奧昭告世人的:「我們說謊,我們詐欺,我們偷竊。」這要我們如何敢將自己的未來,押寶在說謊、詐欺、偷竊的「美國之光」?事實上,你們早在1978年就曾背叛我們,當時中華民國政府尚且與你們是正式的同盟,如今只要你們交易完成,隨時都可以出賣我們。
In conclusion, as your government declared plainly in the U.S.-PRC Joint Communique (1972), the US had its interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. Accordingly, since you are not willing to recognize either Taiwan as an independent state or the ROC as the legal government of China, we have no choice but to deal with the question of reunification with Beijing by the Chinese ourselves. Helping instead of harming us, you could stop intervening in the Taiwan question, otherwise it will only strengthen the risk across the Taiwan Strait and put us in jeopardy. Thank you if you release your hands.
總言之,正如你們在美國與中華人民共和國政府1972年的聯合公報中所言,美國關注的利益在於台灣問題由中國人自己以和平方式解決。因此,既然你們無意承認台灣獨立,同時也不願承認中華民國政府代表中國,我們別無選擇,只有與北京一起處理,由我們中國人自己解決統一的問題。如果你們真要幫我們而非害我們,就請停止干預台灣問題,否則只會更加劇台海情勢的緊張,置我們於危險境地。就請你們高抬貴手,在此先謝過了!
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過12萬的網紅王炳忠,也在其Youtube影片中提到,🔥支付寶打賞:13581883245 🔥王炳忠今日頭條:搜索「王炳忠台灣」 🔥王炳忠臉書粉專:https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang ♦♦♦ “Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious questio...
「in conclusion formal」的推薦目錄:
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 王炳忠 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 周庭 Agnes Chow Ting Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的精選貼文
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 王炳忠 Youtube 的精選貼文
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 puravida Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 Other ways to say IN CONCLUSION: To sum up, In ... - Pinterest 的評價
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 Phrases for conclusion in an essay [closed] - English Stack ... 的評價
- 關於in conclusion formal 在 Alternative Advanced English Phrases and Expressions! 的評價
in conclusion formal 在 周庭 Agnes Chow Ting Facebook 的精選貼文
我到美國接受了星島中文電台的訪問,當中談及了公民抗命、DQ事件、民主自決等等,最後節目被改名(刪去了「民主自決」的字眼),甚至被下架。自今,星島中文電台仍未有解釋原因。
節目內容和編排,包括解釋民主自決的理念,也是電台一方建議的。如果星島因為政治敏感而將節目下架,為何當初要如此建議?再者,每個人也有談及自己政治主張的權利和自由,也有權不同意或作出批評,作為媒體,何必如此懼怕,要自我審查?
星島中文電台必須盡快清楚解釋,及把節目重新上載網頁,我們需要的是媒體,不是政權的喉舌。
(中文版本在英文版本下方)
==== Press Release: A protest against political censorship by Sing Tao Chinese Radio (AM1400) ====
Agnes Chow 周庭, who was disqualified in the Hong Kong LegCo by-election in January this year, was invited by Stanford Hong Kong Student Association to attend the Cantonese Awareness Week in mid April. Northern California Hong Kong Club had coordinated with the hosts of a current affairs talk show 焦點訪談 of Sing Tao Chinese Radio (AM1400) to arrange Agnes Chow and another ex-Scholarism member appearing in the 4/17 (Tuesday) show.
Everything went smoothly and there were good interaction among the host, the guests and the audience. As usual, the program recording was archived in the show web site (http://www.chineseradio.com/…/%E7%AF%80%E7%9B%AE…/cm-f09-10/) in the same afternoon.
Alerted by a friend, however, we noticed that the recording of this particular episode has gone through sequences of editing and censorship afterward.
1) The title of the episode has changed from "04/17/2018 香港眾志常委周庭闡述香港自決主張" to "04/17/2018 訪問香港眾志常委周庭".
2) Starting from 4/19 (Thu) afternoon or earlier, the link of this episode no longer works while all other older and newer episodes work just fine. (See the attached screen capture: singtao_0421.png.)
In fact, we found out only the MP3 file of this episode (http://archive.chineseradio.com/Archive/C20180417_09-10.mp3) is removed or renamed. The episode one day before (http://archive.chineseradio.com/Archive/C20180416_09-10.mp3) and one day after (http://archive.chineseradio.com/Archive/C20180418_09-10.mp3) are still accessible.
3) We notified the host on 4/19 (Thu) about this issue. Later on, we filed a formal complaint through its official contacts with email and online message board. Not only do we not get any official response, but the operation to block this episode also seems to step up.
4) Starting from 4/23 (Mon) afternoon or earlier, even the web page of the whole talk show archive is removed (screen capture: singtao_0423.png) and a new archive page is created (screen capture: singtao_0424.png). In this new page, however, the 4/17 episode disappears and all other episodes have no title. Besides, this talk show is missing in the archive page of all cantonese programs (screen capture: singtao_cantonese_0424.png). All these appear to be a cover-up for the removal of the episode involing Agnes Chow.
So far, we do not receive any official explanation. Based on the sequences of events, the only logical conclusion is that the blocking is an intended political censorship and not a technical error.
Let us be clear that we had had good working relationship with the hosts in the past. We appreciated their openness and professionalism to invite different spectrum of view points to their program.
We suspect this post-censorship is an intervention from the senior management of the Sing Tao Group, as the political leaning of the owner and the editor in chief of the Sing Tao Group is well known.
We have to ask the Sing Tao senior management:
- Why are you so afraid of a 21-year-old activist has to say?
- The director of HK ETO in San Francisco was willing to attend the panel discussion in Stanford on the very same day (4/17) to debate Agnes Chow head on. Where is your courage?
Although the majority of the mass media in Hong Kong has been influenced directly or indirectly by mainland China or pro-establishment interest, it is a whole different matter when such political censorship happens in the United States. According to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, an organization and persons have to disclose the related activities and finances if they act "at the order, request, or under the direction or control" of a foreign power. As such, we would like to remind our media friends in the United States about the potential consequence of your action.
Northern California Hong Kong Club
2017-04-24
[Background information]
梁建鋒 (Editor in Chief of Sing Tao Group): 百無小政客
https://www.singtaousa.com/…/481534-%E7%99%BE%E7%84%A1%E5%…/
维基百科: 何柱國 (Owner of Sing Tao Group)
https://zh.wikipedia.org/…/%E4%BD%95%E6%9F%B1%E5%9C%8B_(%E5…
Foreign Agents Registration Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…/Foreign_Agents_Registration_Act
_________________________________________________
==== 4月17日是怎樣被星島中文電台消失的 ====
今年一月在香港立法會補選中被奪去參選資格的香港眾志常委周庭,應史丹福大學香港同學會的邀請,到訪灣區參加四月中旬的廣東話週。北加洲香港會協調安排了周庭與另一位前學民思潮成員,於4月17日(星期二)在星島中文電台(AM1400)「焦點訪談」節目中接受現場訪問。
訪問過程順利,主持人、來賓和聽眾互動良好。當日節目重温一如既往,當天下午即存檔在節目網站(http://www.chineseradio.com/…/%E7%AF%80%E7%9B%AE…/cm-f09-10/)。
然而,一位朋友稍後注意到當曰節目重温連結出現了問題,她把這事情告知我們。我們開始跟進,發現該連結經過一系列的編輯和疑似審查:
1)當日節目重温標題,由原先的“04/17/2018 香港眾志常委周庭闡述香港自決主張”,後被改為“04/17/2018 訪問香港眾志常委周庭”。
2)從4月19日(星期四)下午或更早的時候開始, 當日節目重温連結失效,然而所有其他較新或較舊的節目重温連結仍正常工作。(參閱屏幕截圖:singtao_0421.png)
我們發現只有這一集的MP3語音文件(http://archive.chineseradio.com/Archive/C20180417_09-10.mp3)被刪除或重新命名。 之前一天(http://archive.chineseradio.com/Archive/C20180416_09-10.mp3)和之後的一天(http://archive.chineseradio.com/Archive/C20180418_09-10.mp3)的文件則完好無缺。
3)4月19日(星期四)下午,我們通知星島中文電台主持人有關事宜。之後我們再依正式途徑,用電郵和網上留言投訴。我們不但沒有得到回覆,星島對該節目的屏閉動作反而更進一步。
4)從4月23日(週一)下午或更早的時候開始,整個「焦點訪談」節目的原有重温網頁亦被删除(參閱屏幕截圖:singtao_0423.png),而新建了一個重温網頁(參閱屏幕截圖:singtao_0424.png)。在這個新的網頁中,4月17日消失了,而其他日子亦沒有題目。另外在羅列所有粤語節目的網頁中 (singtao_cantonese_0424.png),「焦點訪談」亦不見了。種種動作,似乎是對周庭訪問重温被消失作掩飾。
到目前為止,我們沒有收到星島中文電台的任何解釋。根據事件的發展時序,唯一合乎邏輯的結論是,封鎖是有意的政治審查,而不是技術上的錯誤。
我們一直與「焦點訪談」節目主持人有著良好的工作關係。我們讚賞他們以專業及開放的態度,邀請不同的觀點的來賓到他們的節目發表言論。
我們認為這次審查是源於管理高層的介入,星島集團主席和總編輯的政治傾向是眾所周知的。
我們必須問星島集團管理高層:
- 為什麼你們如此害怕一個21歲的年青人的言論?
- 舊金山香港經貿辦主任,就在同一天(4月17日)願意出席史丹福大學的香港問題討論會,面對面與周庭同場討論。為何你們沒有這個勇氣?
儘管香港傳媒近年常因中國大陸或親建制勢力的影響,而直接或間接的進行政治審查。但要在美國進行這樣的政治審查,則要面對一種完全不一樣的環境。根據美國“外國代理人註冊法”,如果一個組織和個人,在外國勢力的指揮或控制下行事,他們必須披露相關活動和財務聯繫。我們想提醒身在美國的媒體朋友,注意你們的行為可能引起的後果。
北加州香港會
2017年4月24日
in conclusion formal 在 Sam Tsang 曾思瀚 Facebook 的精選貼文
The position regarding China from the Catholic Church needs to stand with the oppressed believers. Please listen to Cardinal Zen.
Please share with your friends on this article, it is important to let people know!
The position of the Holy See regarding the Assembly of Chinese Catholic Representatives
In the middle of December, when Gianni Valente broke the news of the imminent Ninth Assembly of Chinese Catholic Representatives, he rightly qualified it as “The Highest Organism which executes the Religious Policy of the Chinese Authorities for the Catholic Church”.
In more clear words we may say that: it is the most formal and explicit manifestation of the schismatic Nature of the Church in China.
Consequently I asked the question: How can the Holy See just let it take place?
Now comes the Official Declaration from the Holy See. It says that the Holy See “is waiting for hard facts before it makes a judgment”. That means the Holy See would let the Assembly to take place and allow the Catholics to take part in it.
The Declaration says “the position of the Holy See regarding this Assembly is well known”. I have to confess that I have difficulty to understand what that position is exactly.
I remember, in 2010, before the Eighth Assembly, the Pontifical Commission for the Catholic Church in China had issued a communiqué, which obviously had the Pope’s approval, telling the Bishops not to take part in it.
So the Declaration differs from the Communiqué?
If one holds on the communiqué of 2010 (because the mature of the Assembly is objectively “schismatic”) how can he take part in it? Is it not an act of direct and formal cooperation in grivious sin?
Have the people responsible for the Declaration consulted the opinion of the Congregation for the Doctrine (present and past Prefects) and experts in Canon Law (present and former members of the Commission)? The seriousness of the matter seems to demand it.
—————————————————————
Coming back to the Declaration: what “hard facts” they are waiting to see? Don’t the people in Vatican already know the working of those Assemblies?
Everything is controlled by the Government. They used to appoint a lay person, Mr. Liu bai-nian, to preside. The members include all the bishops recognized by the Government, plus representatives from priests, nuns and laity (in what proportion in number compared with the bishops? With what kind of election are they chosen?)
They have authority to pass deliberations, e.g. to modify the Constitutions of the Patriotic Association and of the Bishops’ Conference, after some “fake” discussion.
Their main job is to elect the leadership of the Church for the coming 5 years: President and vice-presidents of the Patriotic Association; President and vice-presidents of the Bishops’ Conference (All the candidates are already seated at the presidential table from the beginning of the Assembly).
Does the Holy See expect radical changes of this procedure?
The Declaration also says: “all the people are waiting to see some positive signals (from the Assembly). What positive signals do they expect to see? That the Government decides to relinquish their control and interference in the internal affairs of the Catholic Church? That the Assembly, led by the Bishops, puts up a “revolution”, swear their loyalty to the Pope and no more to the Atheist Government? (Without a good probability to get these facts there is no sufficient justification for taking part in such Assembly.)
But given the recent tightening of Government Religious policy and increasing tendency to compromise in several bishops (with understanding or even encouragement from the Holy See), there seems to be not even a minimum of possibility of such a revolution.
Gianni Valente talks about “trusting the bishops”. But here you are demanding heroism. Is that fair? In comparison it is much easier to get away and boycott the Assembly than to start a revolution in it. In the Assembly the “opportunists” will raise their voice to support the Government.
Then to judge by facts you need to have reliable information, can you get it? Are the media admitted into the Assembly?
—————————————————————
Is not the Assembly itself taking place already a most evident signal that the Chinese Government is taking a hard position, showing no good will? They simply demand a total surrender. Can we nourish any hope in a good conclusion of the Sino-Vatican talks?
Am I an extreme pessimist? I would like to be proved as such by facts. I would be happy it all my pessimistic prophesies fail and get scorned by my foes. As every Catholic faithful I long for a future of unity and harmony for our Church in China, but a unity in the truth and a harmony in freedom. Our Lord Redeemer will surely grant it to us in His good time. In the meantime for this Christmas time we have better to pray more and give ourselves to fasting.
May the Rising Sun from the East bring us light and warmth!
May Mary and Joseph be our companions in this pilgrimage!
John the Baptist, you said “No” to Herod, pray for us!
Stephen, dying you saw the Heaven opened and the Lord in glory, pray for us! #china #vatican #catholic #sinovatican
in conclusion formal 在 王炳忠 Youtube 的精選貼文
🔥支付寶打賞:13581883245
🔥王炳忠今日頭條:搜索「王炳忠台灣」
🔥王炳忠臉書粉專:https://www.facebook.com/bingzhong.wang
♦♦♦
“Are you helping or harming us?” This is my serious question to you American politicians, including those in the Trump administration and in the Congress. As the spokesperson for the New Party, one of Taiwan’s political parties, and also a young man who has lived in Taiwan for more than 32 years since my birth, I should tell you that the answer decides our future without doubt. In other words, the very fact I must confirm is whether you support Taiwan independence instead of the One-China policy or just deploy Taiwan as your pawn to bargain with Beijing. To be honest, as you always take it for granted to sacrifice others for your benefits, it is quite important for us to make sure in advance.
As we all know, the US Congress usually tends to challenge China’s sovereignty over Taiwan because of the impact of the military-industrial complex and the lobbies hired by the Taiwan government. The Taiwan Travel Act and the TAIPEI Act are the late instances. However, without the administration’s implementation, these are only lip service. Thus, the administration’s attitude is crucial indeed. So, let’s see the Department of State. As Secretary Pompeo stated last March, the US is now using every tool in its tool kit to prevent China from isolating Taiwan through diplomatic channels. This year, after shifting blames for its neglect of the pandemic prevention by attacking China and the WHO, the Department of State recently expressed support for Taiwan’s participation in the WHA. The above really triggered my curiosity: The establishment of the US-Taiwan formal diplomatic relations is just the most useful tool, isn’t it? Why does the US not use that? Besides, since Taiwan should become a formal member of the UN before entering the WHO, why does the US not recognize Taiwan as a sovereign state or the ROC government in Taiwan as the only legal government of China instead of the PRC?
The answer to my question seems that your real intention is not to support Taiwan’s real independence but only to trouble Beijing. Just as Pompeo said at a congressional hearing, the Trump administration’s way of viewing the US-Taiwan relations can consider the threat of China’s rise more than the predecessors, which reveals that Taiwan is only a chess piece for Washington to play with Beijing. Furthermore, since the US has no will to have Taiwan as a formal ally, Taiwan is just a pawn you can sacrifice anytime. Consequently, Taiwan must suffer the worsening of cross-strait relations at our own cost while the US just plays Taiwan to bargain with Beijing for your own interests. The outcome is so predictable that Taiwan should go through a depression for its large economic dependence on mainland China which you are unable and unwilling to make up. Besides, we should even consider the most serious situation that a war occurs in the Taiwan Strait. The scenario of Taiwan military is holding on alone within two to three weeks in order to wait for the US military aid. Nevertheless, as the former AIT chairman Richard Bush said, the implied commitment of the US to come to Taiwan’s defense has never be absolute. In other words, we should risk engaging a war with Beijing resulted from your dangerous game, sacrificing our lives for your lies.
As I already told you earlier, the real threat to the US is not China’s rise but the loss of your self-confidence. Moreover, you have weakened the stability across the Taiwan Strait by inciting Taiwan to deny the 1992 consensus and intervening in Taiwan’s campaign last year, which destroys the status quo and your interests indeed. Certainly, as what Secretary Pompeo has told us, “We lied, we cheated, we stole,” how can we bet our future on the US “glory” of lying, cheating, and stealing? In fact, as you once betrayed us in 1978 even though the ROC government in Taiwan and your government was formal alliance then, it is much easier for you today to abandon us when the deal has been done.
In conclusion, as your government declared plainly in the U.S.-PRC Joint Communique (1972), the US had its interests in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves. Accordingly, since you are not willing to recognize either Taiwan as an independent state or the ROC as the legal government of China, we have no choice but to deal with the question of reunification with Beijing by the Chinese ourselves. Helping instead of harming us, you could stop intervening in the Taiwan question, otherwise it will only strengthen the risk across the Taiwan Strait and put us in jeopardy. Thank you if you release your hands.
in conclusion formal 在 puravida Youtube 的最讚貼文
PURA VIDA 027 - Hoyo De Monterrey Le Hoyo De Rio Seco (Cigar Review)
Skip to:
THE INSPECTION 1:06
THE STORY 1:53
THE FIRST THIRD 3:30
THE SECOND THIRD 4:49
FINAL THIRD & CONCLUSION 6:07
Released in Beirut, Lebanon in December 2018, the latest offering from Habanos SA comes from the Hoyo De Monterrey marca, the hefty 56 ring gauge Le Hoyo De Rio Seco which made its formal introduction to Malaysian aficionados in La Casa Del Habanos KL a few weeks ago and today we're back in the same location to formally review the cigar so lets dive right in!
Special thanks to the good folks at Pacific Cigar Company (Malaysia), in particular Azliza Razali & Serena Ong.
Cigar courtesy of La Casa Del Habanos Kuala Lumpur.
Location: La Casa Del Habanos Kuala Lumpur @Mandarin Oriental Hotel.
Video shot and edited by Jay Walia on a Samsung S7 Edge.
Assisted by Divya Nandini.
- Jay Walia & Pura Vida reviews are not affiliated with any retailers/distributors/corporations unless stated otherwise.
- The 'Pura Vida Intro' and 'Pura Vida Outro' theme are copyrighted works of original music, ©Jay Walia Music.
- All cigars for reviews are bought by the reviewer unless stated otherwise.
- All opinions expressed in reviews are personal views and cannot be argued as fact unless stated otherwise. #cigar #review #cigarreview
in conclusion formal 在 Phrases for conclusion in an essay [closed] - English Stack ... 的推薦與評價
The first is right, the second sounds awkward. Formal, yes. Stylish, no. Pretty standard really, which is good, because you don't necessarily want to be ... ... <看更多>
in conclusion formal 在 Alternative Advanced English Phrases and Expressions! 的推薦與評價
STOP SAYING in conclusion and learn Alternative Advanced English Phrases and Expressions to better express yourself when speaking English. ... <看更多>
in conclusion formal 在 Other ways to say IN CONCLUSION: To sum up, In ... - Pinterest 的推薦與評價
Aug 23, 2018 - Synonyms for IN CONCLUSION: To sum up, In summary, To conclude, In closing, Finally. In Conclusion Examples: To summarize, All in all, ... ... <看更多>