關於 me neither意思 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

#throwback #eliayse #fairy
Eli Ayase, sanjou~! Lol
It's Valentine's Day tomorrow 🌹
How will you be celebrating it with your beloved waifu nee~ hehe 😇
🎊🎊🎊 https://goo.gl/FqsUaM 🎊🎊🎊
Finally done with the pre-order form! Sorry for the long wait~
I will be giving out a mystery Valentine's gift to everyone with any purchase oh~ 😉
For those who wish to COD for their pre-order, you may do so at ACE event or Cosplay Stories (Kedah event)
If you are not attending neither of the events, don't worry~
you can always opt for postage delivery~
Previously I have received some question from dear fans about what I will be cosplaying and what is my goal this year? I am actually intrigued to know what are my followers' thoughts of me hehe~ I know many of you concerned about me being too stressed out last year, thank you all for your support!
This year marks the 10th year of me cosplaying~ I'd like to use this opportunity to put in my all to fulfill what I really love to do and cosplay all the characters that I love.
Hobby is supposed to destress and not the other way round! Hehe~
Hence I will be updating my page lesser because I choose quality over quantity!
I will be working out hard to be in my best physique to cos my beloved characters~ especially after the new year wink
Here I also want to thank all of you who have followed my page, as there may be times I tend to not follow the mainstream trends. I just felt that I am a rather loyal person who will put in 101% effort to cos characters that I truly love, and not blindly jumping into bandwagon of trends. Therefore I really appreciate and grateful for everyone who supports me nevertheless!!
Last but not least, this weekend will be ACE event and I really hope to see everyone there! 💓

久违的eli图哈哈哈
明天就是情人节了🌹
大家是不是和你们心中的waifu度过呢嘻嘻😇
🎊🎊🎊 https://goo.gl/FqsUaM 🎊🎊🎊
周边预购单终于弄好了
不好意思让你们久等了
只要买上任何周边的我会送上神秘情人节小礼物给你们哦😉
有购买周边的人可以在ACE活动和Cosplay Stories(吉打活动)面交哦
去不到活动的别担心，可以选择邮寄方式得到哦😉
之前有人问我今年会cos什么和什么目标？
其实我也很好奇follow我的你们是如何看我的哈哈
去年因为有些东西弄到自己压力过头了
今年我cos的第10年
我想慢慢做我喜欢的东西或出自己爱的角色
爱好是开心的不是弄到我感到压力的来源
所以我也比较少更新page的感觉
出产量没有之前多了
最近新年也发胖了不少哈哈哈
需要多多运动修饰下身材出自己爱的角色呀😂
其实真的很感谢愿意一直follow我的专业的你们
毕竟我真的是个太坚持自己原则而cos的人
出自己爱的系列为主
有人问我为什么不出些最近人气的角色来提升或维持专业的流量
就我觉得我自己喜欢什么就cos，不是因为别人喜欢什么而cos啦哈哈
然后这周末我会出席 ACE活动
欢迎大家到时找我勾搭哦💓

Photo 📷 fritz fusion
Helper 🌷 khairul

ultra vires

【回覆選舉主任的追問】（Please scroll down for English version）

（選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問： https://goo.gl/unqfuP ）

我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任，內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助，大家可參考他的文章：

村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎！
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD

全文：

「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函，現謹覆如下:

█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題

1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥

2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定，「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明，示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區，否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」

《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定，為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」，「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。

3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步，假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力，而這並無違反人權)，「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯，亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。

區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定)，將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立， 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。

但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋， 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」

4. 再者，立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時，完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般，考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容，背後更無任何有約束力 的決定，要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。

反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出，「本條例草案的目的，是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文，以確保選舉公開、公平和公正，並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。

5. 無論如何，即使區慶祥法官亦須承認，任何有關的聲明規定， 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下，實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。

法律上，選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting

Wade and Forsyth.

(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

在這方面，《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的，是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下，並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區，亦即提名的有效性，並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念，《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問，否則他或她行事的目的，就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查，而非確保提名的有 效性。

故此，我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。

█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題，我並不同意你的說法，因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制，因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而，正如我昨日的回覆所指，「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革，包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條，作為中共封殺真普選後，港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時，我沒有主張「香港獨立」。

█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」，不過，提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人，不單自己不可主張港獨，也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障，亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。

請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆，決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料，請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。

2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」

【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】

Mr. Yuen,

I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:

█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination

1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.

2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.

3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.

Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’

4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)

5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).

In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'

- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.

(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.

Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.

█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".

█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.

Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.

《互相尊重的認知》
Understanding Mutual Respect (English version below)

吾有兩位女學生，犯了佛教的「不飲酒」戒。

一位30歲左右的，說是公司聚會，上司一直叫她喝，不好拒絕。吾弟子問她，明明是白領佳人，難不成還得兼職「陪酒小姐」？

這位學生，也因爲飲酒，而多次欺騙老公與公婆，說是在公司加班。

另一位學生是位中年婦女。她受老闆之託，旅行回國時幫老闆買酒。她也說，不懂得如何拒絕老闆。

這位中年婦女與吾皈依同一位根本上師，當代法王蓮生活佛，卻藐視根本上師的教義，忤逆吾的教誨。她從不好好閱讀根本上師的文集與開示，一直祇求吾以風水八字來解決她家人的問題，治標不治本。

因此，她忽略了師佛近期的開示：「拿酒給人喝，犯了不飲酒戒，五百世沒有手。」

（如蚯蚓等動物。）

這兩位學生，同樣的都沒告訴老闆她們的戒律。

妳自己都不尊敬妳的信仰，不會有人尊重妳的信仰。

如果妳不開妳的金口，介紹妳信仰的戒律給他人，他人又怎麼知道妳有這條戒律呢？

如果說出來了，他自然不會叫妳買酒或帶妳去喝酒。

自己要先有守戒的精神。如果妳沒有，妳一定也是爲了不好意思或怕炒魷魚，就這樣犯戒。

這個世界上不是只有一份工作可以做。

如果妳明知故犯，折了這個福，妳認為妳未來還會有好的發展嗎？

我們所要的一切都是建立在德。

天，因爲有德，所以常覆，地有德，所以常載，日月星有德，所以常照。

人要有德，才能夠常順、常旺、常樂。

妳不能說妳怕拒絕，以免什麼會發生在妳身上。東家不打打西家，人要有志氣，要有守戒的精神，才會得善神的擁護。

妳自己都不尊重妳的信仰，試問人家怎麼會尊重妳的信仰呢？他看妳也不過是那種人，可能暗地裡還瞧不起妳，覺得妳外表說妳已皈依，原來妳根本沒有皈依，還是犯戒。

千萬不要這樣做。

做爲一個老闆，一個上司，必須要以德服人。下屬因爲是你的員工，她當然不敢得罪你，冒犯你，因爲她需要這個薪水來養家或過活。就算她爲了順從你，而犯戒，你在她心中的形象一定大打折扣。如果有一天，她有了另外一份工作邀約，她一定不考慮就走，因爲她覺得你是一個敗德的上司，不值得她忠心。

如果她留下來，那必定只有一個原因，因爲她也敗德。敗德的上司 + 敗德的下屬，能做出什麼好成績來？

學佛人，得懂得匡正自己，也匡正別人，所以必須得解釋給妳老闆，或任何不明白的人，妳你爲何會拒絕他做某樣事情，尤其是買賣酒、買賣煙、買賣色情刊物等等。

大家要明白什麼叫戒律，戒律不是有宗教信仰的人，才要守的律法。戒律是一個正人君子的準則，是止惡揚善的基礎，根本沒有分誰應該守。

只要是人，都必須守。走在正道上，沒有過失下，才不會損失我們的福德。

那位中年婦女的老闆，「勸」吾的學生不必執著戒律，佛陀不是說斷執著嗎？

沒有皈依學佛的，千萬不要不懂裝懂，以免斷人慧命，造了殺生業。

佛陀涅槃時，阿難問佛：「佛在世時，我們以佛為師，佛滅度後大眾以何為師呢？」

佛言：「以戒為師。」

喝酒，會亂人本性，生出無量的過失，如酒後駕駛、醉酒打人、儀態盡失、胡言亂語、淫慾熾盛、惡人相近等等。

一位老客人，七旬老翁，生性節儉。一家大小雖是佛教徒，老翁卻酗酒成性。長子乃吾弟子，之前爲了迎合父親要求，常買酒「供養」他。

後來，媳婦（也是吾弟子也）顧及老翁的健康和戒律，阻止先生助紂為虐，也勸其家婆、小姑和弟弟不要買酒，卻惹來老翁辱罵長子：「沒有用！」

事隔數年，老翁喝壞了身體，今年年中入院開刀。吾於心不忍，以玄學來幫助這位老客人能早日康復。

喝酒的人愚癡，送酒的人愚孝。

吾，玳瑚師父，滴酒不沾，任何有酒精的食物，吾也不食。不飲酒者，有何果報？

意念清明，智慧超群，不會精神分裂、不會神智恍惚、不會胡思亂想，更不會被迷惑。

⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯⋯

2 of my female students flouted the Buddhism precept of abstinence from alcohol.

One of them, in her early 30s, told me that it was a company gathering, and her supervisor egged her to drink. She could not refuse. My disciple asked her, isn't it absurd that as a white-collared employee, she has to "part-time" as a drinking hostess?

This student of mine also lied to her husband and parents-in-laws numerous times, that she was working overtime when, in fact, she was out drinking.

Another student of mine is a middle-aged lady, who was requested by her superior to buy duty-free alcohol on her return from travelling. She also told me that she did not know how to say no to her boss.

This lady, like me, took refuge under the same Root Guru, Living Buddha Lian Sheng. However, she blantantly ignored His Teachings and my reminders. She did not diligently read the Dharma books and discourses from our Root Guru Master, yet always sought my help in Feng Shui and Bazi to solve her family woes. This is not solving the root causes at all.

Hence, she missed out on a recent Dharma discourse by our Root Guru: If you give alcohol to others, you are breaking the precept of abstinence from alcohol, and the consequence is 500 rebirths without limbs.

(Eg. like a millipede)

These 2 students did not tell their superiors of their precepts.

If you do not respect your own faith, nobody will give your faith the due respect too.

If you don't break your silence and let others know about the precepts in your religion, how would others know about your precept on abstinence from alcohol?

If you voice it out, naturally your superior will not ask you to buy alcohol nor bring you along for drinking sessions.

You must first have the spirit to uphold the precepts, lacking which you will be easily swayed by situations such as embarrassment or fear of losing your job, and eventually flouting the precepts.

There is more than one job for you in this world.

If you flout the precepts intentionally, and lose your merits, what good future do you think is left for you?

Our merit and virtues are the source of all that we desire.

The Heavens and Earth have virtues , therefore can encompass all. The Sun, moon and the stars have virtues, hence their never ending radiance.

Man must have virtues, in order to enjoy peace, prosperity and bliss.

You cannot give the excuse that you fear the consequence of saying no. There is always another job out there. A person must have higher aspirations, and the willpower to observe the precepts in order to be blessed by the virtuous gods.

If you do not respect your own faith, how would another person respect it? He will not be impressed, and may even secretly despise you for being a hypocrite in taking refuge, as you are not steadfast in upholding your precepts.

Do not ever do this.

As a boss, as a superior, you must command the respect of your subordinates with your merits and virtues. It is natural that your subordinate will not dare to offend you because she needs the job and salary to make a living or feed their families.

Even if she follow your instructions, at the expense of flouting her precepts, deep in her heart, she will think lesser of you. If one day she receives another job offer, she will not hesitate to leave you because she feel that you are lacking in virtues and unworthy of her loyalty.

If she stays on, then it must be for the reason that she too is lacking in virtues. A non-virtuous superior + a non-virtuous employee, what good result can they produce?

A practicing Buddhist must learn to correct oneself, and others. Therefore, you need to explain to you boss, or any other people who do not understand your rationale, why you refuse to help him/her in certain things such as buying alcohol, cigarettes, R-rated publications, etc.

Everyone must understand what exactly precepts are. It is not applicable solely to people with a religious faith. Precepts are the cornerstone of a upright and righteous human being. They are the foundation of spreading goodness and curbing the non-virtuous in us, and applicable to every one of us

As long as you are human, you should observe the precepts. Walking on the right path, and not committing any sin, will ensure that our merits are not taken away.

The boss of my middle-aged student "advised" her not to be too attached to the precepts. Didn't Buddha proclaim non-attachment? So said the boss.

If one has not taken refuge and properly learn the Dharma, please do not behave like a know-it-all and dish out irresponsible "advice" to others. This grave act of recklessness may destroy the life of wisdom in the listener, akin to the act of killing.

When Lord Buddha was about to enter Nirvana, his disciple, Ananda, asked, "When the Buddha is in this world, He is revered as our Teacher. But when the Buddha enters Nirvana, who should we follow as our Teacher?"

Buddha expounded: "I have already given you the precepts. The precepts are your teacher".

Drinking alcohol will create chaos to the human nature, and countless sins arise, such as drunk driving, drunk fighting, loss of etiquette, blabbering of nonsense, sexual indecency, attracting bad company, etc.

An old client of mine, in his 70s, lives frugally. Together with his wife and children, they are Buddhists. However, the elderly man is an alcoholic.

His eldest son is my disciple. Previously, to make his father happy, he would buy him liquor and beer whenever the elderly man asks for it.

Subsequently, his wife (also my disciple) prevented him from buying alcohol, out of consideration for the elderly man's health and their precepts. They also told the mother and younger siblings to refrain from buying.

However, all the eldest son got was a bellow of "Useless son!" from the elderly man.

A few years later, alcoholism took a toil on the old man and he was warded for an operation in the middle of this year.

I pitied him and helped him towards a smoother recovery with my Metaphysics abilities.

Deluded is the man who drinks.

Ignorant is the filial piety of the children who feed his alcoholism.

I have abstained from intoxicants for over a decade, and neither do I consume food with alcohol in it.

What are the merits from such abstinence?

Beside mental clarity and supreme wisdom, one will not be stricken with schizophrenia, mental disarray, mental disturbance and fall prey to temptations.

I thought I might cover an English song this time!
(Focus fixes itself at 0:47, sorry about that.)

When I wore this shirt for one of my live videos, a viewer asked me "Did you get in a car accident?" and "Did you get in a fight with a bear?" asked another. Rest assured, neither is the case. I bought it this way. Why, you ask? Now that is the real question.

這次想說來一首英文歌好了！
（對焦問題0:47就好了，不好意思喔！）

第一次穿這件我的直播觀眾問我「出車禍了嗎？」另外一個問「你跟熊打架了嗎？」你放心，都不是，我買這件的時候就已經是這樣了。為什麼會買這種的？那才是該問的問題;)

臉書：www.facebook.com/yakitorisutan
IG：www.instagram.com/yakitorisutan
浪Live：3177283

Notice: All music belongs to its respective owner, no copyright infringement is intended. This video is made creatively in appreciation of the original artist's work.