终审法院首席法官张举能
以下是终审法院首席法官张举能一月二十日在二○二五年法律年度开启典礼发表的演辞全文（中文译本+英文）：
律政司司长、大律师公会主席、律师会会长、各位法官、各位尊贵的嘉宾、女士们、先生们：
我谨代表香港司法机构热烈欢迎各位出席法律年度开启典礼。这个重要时刻，提醒我们的社会独立的司法机关对司法和法治的重要性。我们同时可藉此机会重申在数十载变迁中持守我们法律与司法制度的价值观，并展望将要迎来的挑战与机遇。
香港素以国际金融中心，安全公平营商之地，普罗大众权利受到保障的城市见称，而法治就是香港赖以建立这声誉的基石。法治是香港「一国两制」框架的重要基础；香港在「一国两制」的保证下维持独特的法律制度，与内地的法律制度既不同但又有内在联系。这独有的安排，需要不断的努力和坚定的承诺来维持，而香港司法机构通过维护法治，在确保「一国两制」的成功方面发挥关键作用。
法治绝不是一个抽象概念，而是一项讲求实效的原则，依赖我们司法体制的公正健全，以及法律专业的日常工作。法治并不单纯关乎法律如何制定，还关乎法律如何公平、一致和独立地应用。诚然，香港的法律和司法制度得以赢得国际认可，不仅是因为它的法律完善严谨，还有是法院以及为之服务的法律专业人员均具备高度专业水平。
司法独立是香港法治的核心所在。《基本法》第八十五条明确保障审判独立进行，不受任何干涉。这并非泛泛空谈，而是一项我们法院一直坚决恪守的宪法规定。
事实上，司法独立最能清楚体现在法官的日常工作之中。法官根据法律和证据判案，不考虑任何外在因素，无论是政治或个人因素，抑或是社会舆情。除非法官恪守依法秉行公义的承诺，否则我们的法律制度无法取信于公众。纵使近年挑战重重，司法机构仍一如既往公正无私地履行其职责。
在我们的普通法制度下，作为判决指导及依据的法律原则与判决本身同样重要。一如其他成熟的普通法司法管辖区法院，我们的法院无论处理商业纠纷、家事法、刑事检控或公法案件，均根据一致适用的法律原则运作。
随着《香港国安法》的引入，以及根据《基本法》第二十三条制定的本地法例相继实施，出现了一些因政治敏感而备受关注的案件。顾名思义，国家安全法律的制定与实际环境息息相关，亦往往因应不同社会的具体需要而量身定制。尽管所有社会均有维护国家安全的需要，但法律的具体内容主要取决于个别社会的当前安全考量、历史经验以及正面临的威胁。这些背景因素在不同社会之间的差异很大，对于公正评价任何社会的国家安全法律至关重要。香港的国家安全法律亦不例外。
然而，有必要理解的是，在我们的法庭中，国家安全案件与其他案件均采用相同的法律原则。无罪推定、要求罪行必须证明至「毫无合理疑点」的规定，以及公平审讯的权利，这些根本保障始终如一。事实上，《香港国安法》第五条以及《维护国家安全条例》第2条对此均特别予以确认。我们的法庭对这些基本原则绝非只说不做。各级法官在审理案件时均应坚守这些原则，而他们确实也如此行事。
如前所述，香港的法治存于一个独特的宪制框架——即「一国两制」的安排。这个安排偶尔会带来复杂性，这在两种不同法律和政治传统共存于单一主权的设计中，或许是在所难免。从这个角度来看，国家安全法律只反映这个框架的「一国」方面，而当中「两制」的概念，正是赋予法院责任，藉符合香港在《基本法》下另一制度的方式去应用这些法律，以维护国家安全。我们面对个中任何难题，都以忠于法律和香港普通法传统为本位。此中不无挑战，但司法机构完全有能力应对。
诚然，一如其他司法管辖区，在保障基本权利与维护国家安全之间，往往存在一定的张力，但司法机构对两者始终坚守秉持。基本权利的保障，不是可简单化或一维之事，往往需要在个人自由与集体安全之间、个人权利与国家责任之间作出谨慎的权衡。取得平衡殊非易事，个别案件的裁决结果或时有争议。此外，对于新制定的法律条文，其解释和应用亦未必是直接明晰的。然而，对某项法律条文或法庭判决持有异议是一回事，声称司法制度已受政治期望或社会氛围削弱，则全然是另一回事。
法官行事受法律原则约束，不为政治目的。法院并非舆论的仲裁者，亦非检控机关的延伸；法院的本位是法律的守护者。法官的判决有理有据，公开发布，可透过上诉予以审视。法治正是藉此程序得以彰显。
事实上，法院通过法律程序本身接受问责。除了聆讯一般都公开进行外，法院的裁决也可以上诉，包括终审法院在内的上诉法院持续监督，并确保法律的应用公平一致。这个藉上诉进行的审查程序是司法问责的基础一环。它确保法律论据获得充分验证，错误可予以纠正，使得法律能以有原则性和连贯性的方式发展和应用。上诉权利的保障，与透明公开的判案理据，均加强了公众对司法工作的信心。
在香港，法院行使宪制职责，依法公平地履行司法工作，其中有赖强而独立的大律师行列鼎力襄助，这诚然是社会之福。大律师肩负捍卫其当事人权益的专职。大律师无论代表当事人提出宪法挑战、司法覆核或是处理国安事宜或相对日常的商业纠纷，都与转聘他们的事务律师合力确保法律得以一致而准确地应用。两个法律专业分支发挥有力的制衡作用，防范任何可能出现的越权行为，协助法院公平公正执行司法工作。
从宏观角度看，国家安全案件只占法院工作的一小部分。司法机构负责的司法工作，范畴相当广泛，涵盖多个与社会和经济正常运作至为重要的领域。
以终审法院为例，单在过去两年，已审理多宗在不同法律范畴中甚具影响的案件，其中包括打击清洗黑钱法例、仲裁、同性平权申索、破产、法援申请的法律专业保密权，以及谋杀和非法集会等严重刑事案件，同时亦审理关乎建筑物管理、刑事审讯中的陪审团指引、裁判法院上诉案件、税务法例及信托法的上诉。所涉猎的案件类型之广，在高等法院尤为明显。这都证明司法机构在社会活动上，几乎方方面面都担当维护公义的核心角色。
不仅如此，香港法院的判例继续备受其他普通法适用地区重视。伦敦枢密院司法委员会近期一宗有关公司清盘问题的判决，就参考并论及多达六宗香港过去数年的判决，其中包括终审法院于二○二三年的一宗上诉判决。
我提出这点并不是为了自我吹嘘，毕竟香港法院也经常参考海外法院的判决；我乃是想强调香港是一个案件复杂且种类繁多的普通法司法管辖区，其法院行使职责的范畴远寛于政治色彩浓厚的案件。法院一贯的日常工作是解决纠纷、保障权利，以及确保香港——这个逾七百万人视之为家园的高度发展现代化都市——妥善运作。我们法院的判决，部分无疑具有重大法理价值，为海外普通法法院关注及引用。然而，许多香港法院的判决都较为寻常普通，但却不减其重要性，因为它们处理的正是普罗大众和企业所面对的一般法律问题。若单单聚焦于备受瞩目的国家安全或公共秩序案件，从狭窄的角度，对香港法治或司法独立状况作出以偏概全的结论，这是误解司法机构的角色与职责的全貌；同时亦忽视了一个事实，那就是香港的法治在广阔不同的法律范畴持续地扎实运作，领域遍及个人、企业和本地并国际的投资者的日常生活和活动。
这亦让我转到最近部分终审法院海外非常任法官离任这个话题。海外法官离任的情况引起部分人士的关注，这是可以理解的。
香港终审法院的组成包含海外法官，其历史原因显然。上世纪九十年代，香港缺少具有最终上诉级别法院工作经验的资深法官。当终审法院于一九九七年成立，以取代伦敦枢密院成为香港的最终上诉法院时，填补新设的司法职位成为了挑战。因此，任命优秀杰出的海外法官担任我们最高级别法院非全职的非常任法官，既解决无法避免的司法人手短缺问题，亦为一九九七后的香港司法制度注入信心。
多年来，一众海外法官在履行终审法院工作及捍卫法治方面贡献良多，影响殊深，备受认同；而在同一时间，通过各方群策群力，终审法院已确立坚实的地位，成为普通法世界当中一个卓越的最终上诉法院。
一九九七年七月一日距今已逾二十七年，香港无疑已扶植和培育足够的法律与司法人才，能够胜任所有的最高级别司法职位。然而，海外非常任法官制度仍具有相当大的价值。一方面，这些杰出海外法官的真知灼见，对香港法官仍然有所启发薰陶，另一方面，他们的参与，自然亦会提升国际社会对香港法律制度的信心。
我们必须从这个背景出发，才能正确理解有关服务多年的海外法官因年迈或其他私人理由退休，以及少数外国法官因政治或其他考量提早请辞的事实。
就这方面，近年地缘政治紧张局势不断加剧，其影响亦不容忽视。香港部分海外法官最近遭受有组织的滋扰和施压，情况固然应受谴责；但这同时亦显示了海外非常任法官的职位已变得何其政治化。任何持平的人观察理解当前形势时，必须考虑到地缘政治紧张局势的大环境。
长期以来，海外法官的参与一直是香港致力追求法律卓越和司法独立的象征。近年有少数海外法官认为无法继续在港服务，实属遗憾。他们固然有权抱持其意见，而他们的决定也应当受到尊重。然而，他们提早离任并不意味司法机构的素质或独立性减低。诚然，在当前地缘政治的不利因素下，延聘拥有相称地位和经验的海外法官可能不如以往顺畅。毕竟，香港任命海外法官为最高级别法院的法官，是基于他们公认的声望和法律专长，而并非纯粹为了表面上维持海外法官制度。然而，终审法院依然拥有深受尊崇的海外及本地非常任法官，他们继续留任，与常任法官并肩工作，正好说明终审法院具备持久的实力和承受挑战的能力。
然而，远比这一切更重要的是，司法机构比任何个人都更宏大。法官来去有时，我们的制度却是建基在法律原则、判案先例以及持续有效运作的稳健架构。个别法官的去留尽管具有重要性，终究也不会削弱制度的基础和健全性。香港法官训练有素，经验丰富，有能力维护法律，这些都不断得到印证。
这亦让我再提起我们的法律业界。香港大律师公会刚庆祝成立七十五周年，大律师与作为业界另一专业分支的事务律师，长久以来都是法治的坚实捍卫者。司法机构向来重视从私人执业的法律专业罗致经验与才德兼备的人才，来补充司法人手。香港最卓越的法官，许多都来自资深大律师的行列。他们具备丰富的诉讼经验，不但精通法律，更深刻领略普通法的传统和价值观念。大律师行列为法治作出的多方面贡献，一直得到社会广泛认同，亦是受之无愧。不过，在大律师行列的悠久历史当中，藉资深大律师投身法官行列以支持法治的需求，也许从未如现在般迫切；因为只有靠这些私人执业多年的业界人士，给司法机构持续注入专业知识和热诚，法院才能保持坚壮、独立，并取信于法律业界和市民大众。
与此同时，亦必须指出司法机构内部也人才辈出。我们有不少法官都是从内部晋升，具备处理复杂法律议题的丰厚经验。他们都充分展现维护法治的才能和决心。事实上，司法机构的内部人才向来在维持香港法律制度的传承、稳定和信心方面，担当不可或缺的角色。这支司法菁英团队，连同持续从法律专业委任的合适贤能，将确保香港司法机构具备优秀且充裕的司法人才，应对未来种种挑战。
近年来，香港在政治、社会或经济方面都面对重大挑战；我们法律制度的应变能力，以至现有制度的成效实力也因而备受考验。但司法机构始终坚定不移，继续维护法治，确保司法程序保持透明、公平和独立。在这多变难测的时期，司法机构的角色越显重要。我们将继续因应社会不断转变的需求持续演进，拥抱新科技，处理前所未见的新问题，力求司法机构在日趋复杂和相互联系的世界里，能够紧贴社会脉搏，保持有效运作。
最后，我祝愿各位与家人在二○二五年身体健康，喜乐满怀。农历新年将至，我祈愿在座各位春节蒙福。谢谢各位！
CJ's speech at Ceremonial
Opening of Legal Year 2025
Following is the full text of the speech delivered by Chief Justice Andrew Cheung, Chief Justice of the Court of Final Appeal, at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2025 today (January 20):
Secretary for Justice, Chairman of the Bar, President of the Law Society, Fellow Judges, Distinguished Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen,
On behalf of the Hong Kong Judiciary, I extend a very warm welcome to all of you to the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year. This important occasion reminds our community of the essential role of an independent judiciary to the administration of justice and the rule of law. It also provides us with an opportunity to reaffirm the values that have sustained our legal and judicial system through decades of change, and to look ahead to the challenges and opportunities that await us.
The rule of law is the foundation on which Hong Kong has built its reputation as an international financial hub, a safe and fair place to do business, and a city where the rights of the ordinary people are protected. It is an essential support of our "one country, two systems" framework, which guarantees that Hong Kong maintains its distinct legal system, separate from yet intrinsically linked to that in the Mainland. This is a unique arrangement that requires constant effort and determined commitment to sustain, with the Hong Kong Judiciary playing a key role in its success by upholding the rule of law.
Far from being an abstract concept, the rule of law is very much a practical principle that depends on the integrity of our judicial institutions and the daily work of the legal profession. It is not simply about laws being written, but about laws being applied fairly, consistently, and independently. Indeed, Hong Kong's legal and judicial system has earned its international recognition not just because of the quality of its laws, but also for the quality of the courts and the legal professionals who serve them.
Lying at the heart of the rule of law in Hong Kong is judicial independence. Article 85 of the Basic Law specifically guarantees that the judicial power shall be exercised independently, free from any interference. This is not a mere form of words, but a constitutional mandate that has always been and continues to be jealously upheld by our courts.
Indeed, judicial independence is most clearly demonstrated through the daily work of judges, who decide cases based on the law and evidence, without regard to extraneous considerations, whether political or personal, or public sentiment. Our system of law cannot command public confidence unless judges remain faithful to their commitment to do justice according to law. And despite the challenges of recent years, the Judiciary continues to discharge that duty with integrity and impartiality.
Under our common law system, the legal principles that guide and inform decisions are just as important as the decisions themselves. Like their counterparts in other mature common law jurisdictions, our courts operate on legal principles that are applied consistently, whether in cases concerning commercial disputes, family law, criminal prosecution, or matters of public law.
The introduction of the Hong Kong National Security Law, which is now complemented by local legislation enacted pursuant to Article 23 of the Basic Law, has brought with it cases that attract heightened attention, particularly because of their political sensitivity. Almost by definition, national security law is highly context-dependent and tailored to the specific needs of each society. Whilst the need to safeguard national security is universal, the specific content of such laws is largely shaped by a society's prevailing security considerations, its historical experiences, and the threats that it is facing. These background matters, which vary widely between societies, are essential to any fair assessment of national security laws. Hong Kong's laws are no different.
However, it is necessary to recognise that in our courts, the same principles of law apply in national security cases as in others. The presumption of innocence, the requirement that guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the right to a fair trial are all essential safeguards that remain firmly in place. Indeed, they are specifically affirmed under Article 5 of the National Security Law as well as section 2 of the Safeguarding National Security Ordinance. Our courts do not merely pay lip service to these fundamental principles. Judges at all levels are expected to, and indeed do, adhere to them in the adjudication of cases.
As mentioned, the rule of law in Hong Kong exists within a unique constitutional framework - the "one country, two systems" arrangement. Undoubtedly, this arrangement brings with it occasional complexities, which are perhaps inevitable in a design where two different legal and political traditions co-exist within a single sovereign state. Viewed in this light, the national security laws simply reflect the "one country" aspect of this framework. But it is the "two systems" part of the notion that entrusts the courts with the responsibility of applying these laws to safeguard national security in a manner consistent with Hong Kong's separate system under the Basic Law. The role of our courts is to address any difficulties with fidelity to the law and Hong Kong's common law tradition. The task is not without its challenges, but it is one that the Judiciary is well equipped to meet.
Admittedly, as in other jurisdictions, a tension often exists between protecting basic rights and safeguarding national security, both of which the Judiciary is firmly committed to upholding. The protection of basic rights is not a simplistic, one-dimensional issue; it often involves a delicate balancing act - between individual freedoms and collective security, between the rights of the person and the responsibilities of the state. Striking the right balance can be challenging, and outcomes in individual cases may be contentious at times. Nor is the interpretation or application of newly enacted statutory provisions always straightforward. However, it is one thing to disagree with a legal provision or a court decision in applying it, but entirely another to suggest that the justice system has been undermined by political expectations or societal atmosphere.
Judges, far from being designed to serve political ends, are bound by legal principles. Courts are not arbiters of public opinion, nor are they an extension of the prosecution authority; they are, above all, guardians of the law. Their decisions are reasoned, published, and subject to appeal. It is through this process that the rule of law is upheld.
Indeed, the courts remain accountable through the legal process itself. Not only are hearings conducted in the open, but decisions are also subject to appeal, and the appellate courts, including the Court of Final Appeal, continue to provide oversight and ensure that the law is applied fairly and consistently. This process of scrutiny is a fundamental aspect of judicial accountability. It ensures that legal arguments are fully tested, that errors can be corrected, and that the law is developed and applied in a principled and coherent manner. The right to appeal, along with the transparency of judicial reasoning, is a safeguard that reinforces public confidence in the administration of justice.
In Hong Kong, the courts' constitutional role in administering justice fairly and in accordance with law is greatly assisted by a strong and independent Bar that our community is fortunate to have. Barristers have a special role as defenders of the rights and interests of their clients. Whether representing clients in constitutional challenges, judicial reviews, national security matters or in more routine commercial disputes, barristers, along with their instructing solicitors, help ensure that the law is applied consistently and accurately. The two branches of the legal profession serve as a powerful counterbalance to any potential overreach, assisting the courts to administer justice fairly and impartially.
From a broader viewpoint, national security cases form but a small fraction of the work of the courts. The Judiciary is tasked with administering justice across a wide range of areas that are critical to the proper functioning of society and the economy.
To take the Court of Final Appeal as an example, in the past two years alone, it has adjudicated on cases of considerable significance across diverse areas of law. These include, for instance, anti-money laundering legislation, arbitration, equality claims involving same-sex relationships, insolvency, legal professional privilege in legal aid applications, and serious criminal matters such as murder and unlawful assemblies. The Court has also heard appeals concerning building management, jury directions in criminal trials, magistracy appeals, revenue legislation and trust law. This breadth of subject matter, which is even more evident at the High Court level, attests to the Judiciary's central role in dispensing justice across nearly all facets of societal activity.
But not only that. The jurisprudence of the Hong Kong courts continues to command high respect in other common law jurisdictions. In a recent judgment, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council sitting in London referred to and discussed no fewer than six Hong Kong decisions from the past few years, including one from the Court of Final Appeal decided in 2023, when determining insolvency issues raised in an appeal before it.
This is mentioned not for reasons of self-promotion - after all, our courts regularly refer to overseas judgments - but to emphasise that Hong Kong is a sophisticated and vibrant common law jurisdiction, with the remit of its courts extending well beyond politically charged cases. The courts are engaged in the steady, day-to-day work of resolving disputes, protecting rights, and ensuring the proper functioning of Hong Kong as a highly developed modern city that over seven million people call home. Some of our court decisions no doubt have significant jurisprudential value, attracting attention and citation in common law courts abroad. But many decisions are more mundane, yet no less important, as they address the everyday legal concerns of ordinary people and businesses. To focus solely on high profile cases concerning national security or public order, and to draw sweeping conclusions about the state of the rule of law or judicial independence in Hong Kong from such a narrow perspective, is to misunderstand the full scope of the Judiciary's role and work. It is also to overlook the fact that the rule of law in Hong Kong continues to operate robustly across a wide spectrum of legal areas, touching upon the daily lives and activities of individuals, businesses and investors, both international and local.
This brings me to the recent departures of some of our overseas non-permanent judges from the Court of Final Appeal, a development which, understandably, has caused concerns in some quarters.
The historical rationale for the presence of overseas judges in our highest court is clear. In the 1990s, Hong Kong lacked senior judges with experience at the final appellate level. This posed a challenge for filling the judicial positions to be created following the establishment of the Court of Final Appeal in 1997 to replace the Privy Council in London as Hong Kong's ultimate appeal court. The appointment of distinguished overseas jurists as part-time, non-permanent judges to our highest court therefore addressed the inevitable shortfall and served the further purpose of instilling confidence in Hong Kong's judicial system in the post-1997 era.
Over the years, the contributions of these overseas judges to the work of the Court and to the upholding of the rule of law have been immense, and have been rightly recognised. During this same period, through the efforts of many, the Court of Final Appeal has firmly established itself as a prominent final appellate court within the common law world.
Now that more than 27 years have passed since July 1, 1997, Hong Kong has undoubtedly developed and nurtured sufficient legal and judicial talent to fill the highest judicial offices even in their entirety. Nonetheless, the system of overseas non-permanent judges remains of considerable value. Not only do our judges continue to benefit from the wisdom of these eminent jurists from abroad, but their presence also naturally enhances international confidence in our legal system.
It is against this backdrop that the retirements of long-serving overseas judges, due to age and other personal reasons, as well as the early departures of a handful of foreign judges on account of political or other considerations, must be understood.
In this regard, the effect of the escalating geopolitical tensions in recent years cannot be ignored. Indeed, the orchestrated harassment and pressures to which some of our overseas judges have recently been subjected are as deplorable as they are indicative of how politicised the office of an overseas non-permanent judge on the Court has now become. And it is this broader context, reflective of the underlying geopolitical tensions, that must inform an impartial observer's understanding of the current situation.
The presence of overseas judges has long stood as a symbol of Hong Kong's commitment to legal excellence and judicial independence. It is unfortunate that a few of these judges have felt unable to continue their service. They are, of course, entitled to their views, and their decisions ought to be respected. However, their premature departures do not mean a weakening of the quality or independence of the Judiciary. It is true that, given the current geopolitical headwinds, recruiting overseas judges with the right stature and experience may be less straightforward than it once was. After all, overseas judges are appointed to our highest court on account of their acknowledged eminence and legal expertise, not merely to sustain the system of overseas judges for its own sake. Still, the Court of Final Appeal continues to include both highly esteemed overseas and local non-permanent judges, and their continued participation, alongside their full-time colleagues, speaks to the enduring strength and resilience of the Court.
However, far more important than all of this, the Judiciary is broader than any individuals. Judges come and go. But our system is built on legal principles, judicial precedents, and a robust structure that will continue to function. The presence or absence of individual judges, whilst important in its own right, will not undermine the integrity of the system. Our judges are well trained, experienced and capable of upholding the law, as they consistently demonstrate.
This brings me back to our legal profession. The Hong Kong Bar Association, which recently marked its 75th anniversary, together with the solicitors' branch of the profession, has long been a staunch defender of the rule of law. The Judiciary has consistently recognised the importance of replenishing its ranks with talented, experienced, and principled practitioners from private practice. Many of Hong Kong's finest judges have come from the senior ranks of the Bar, bringing with them extensive experience in litigation and a strong understanding not only of the law but also of our common law tradition and values. The many ways in which the Bar has contributed to the rule of law have been widely acknowledged. And rightly so. However, perhaps at no other time in its long history has the Bar's support for the rule of law - specifically through its senior members stepping up to serve on the Bench - been more urgently needed than now. For the Judiciary must continue to be infused with the expertise and dedication of those who have spent years in private practice, ensuring that the courts remain strong, independent, and trusted by both the legal profession and the public.
At the same time, it is only right to point out that the Judiciary has a capable pool of talent from within. Many of our judges have risen through the ranks with years of experience in handling complex legal issues. They have demonstrated their competence and their commitment to upholding the rule of law. Indeed, the Judiciary's internal strength plays an essential role in maintaining continuity, stability and confidence in our legal system. This internal talent, together with continued efforts to attract suitable appointments from the legal profession, will ensure that the Hong Kong Judiciary remains equipped, both in terms of quality and capacity, to meet the challenges ahead.
In recent years, Hong Kong has faced significant challenges, whether politically, socially or economically. These challenges have tested the resilience of our legal system and the strengths of our institutions. But the Judiciary has stood firm, continuing to uphold the rule of law and ensuring that legal processes remain transparent, fair and independent. It is in these times of uncertainty that the Judiciary's role becomes even more critical. The Judiciary will continue to adapt to the evolving demands of our society, embrace new technologies, address novel issues and ensure that it remains relevant and effective in an increasingly complex and inter-connected world.
It only remains for me to wish you and your families good health and much happiness in 2025. The Chinese New Year being just days away, I also wish everyone here a very blessed Chinese New Year. Thank you.
点击右下角“在看”，分享给更多小伙伴
您的支持， 是超律志持续更新的动力
