【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】
***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated,將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像:以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文(https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/)翻譯成英文,鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演,在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***
中文精簡版本:https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/
Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.
In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.
The possibility of realizing legislative majority
Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.
The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?
Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.
Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.
Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority
To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.
While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.
Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.
Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.
Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP
What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.
Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.
The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.
Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution
Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.
Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.
The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.
All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.
https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw
get around the problem中文 在 C's English Corner Facebook 的精選貼文
#電影英文筆記
#C式練英文法
昨天在Netflix上看「Marriage Story(婚姻故事)」這部電影,
誰看過?舉手舉手!
我相信每個人一定都有自己鍾愛的一段,
我自己最愛的是開頭,
兩人各自寫了一段喜歡對方的部分,
(目的是什麼我不能說,因為會小爆雷…)
因為太喜歡這段了,所以看完之後決定用這段當作今天練英文的素材。
看起來好長一段,但相信我,當下在聽打的時候真的一點都不感覺無聊冗長,只覺得怎麼這麼簡單的文字、簡短的話,但卻這麼深刻,真的太扣人心弦了!
我自己練習的步驟:
關掉字幕一句一句聽打出內容 ->對照英文看有沒有錯,順便用自己的話理解 -> 對照中文,加深裡面出現的idioms / slang 的印象 -> 抄寫其中很愛的幾句在英文筆記本裡(因為聽打的階段我是用電腦打字)
常常在聽打的時候,就會很驚訝發現,
天啊!這句話我以為很難講耶,沒想到竟然用這麼簡單的字就可以表達這麼好!
這種「WOW~太神奇了吧!」就成為每次我在練習時的樂趣,呵呵~
例如
She always knows the right thing to do when it comes to difficult family shit.
difficult family shit – 翻譯是翻「嚴重的家庭危機」,但我更喜歡自己的詮釋「跟家庭/家人有關的鳥事」
很多人看到「家庭危機」一定直白想到什麼crisis / issue 甚至 problem之類的,是也可以啦,但family shit就更口語表達這種”shitty things”,滿可愛的耶!
She’s always inexplicably brewing a cup of tea that she doesn’t drink.
Inexplicable / inexplicably – 中文解釋是「無法解釋、令人費解的(地)」,之前一直覺得這個字好像都用在比較文鄒鄒的地方,沒想到在這裡可以當做「她總能神奇地泡好一杯茶,雖然她自己不喝」,有點這種「我真的搞不懂她欸」的感覺。
I get stuck in my ways, and she knows when to push me and when to leave me alone.
Get stuck in my ways – 翻譯雖然是翻「裹足不前」,但平常我們講話真的很少用這個成語呀!所以我自己詮釋是「我自己卡關、猶豫不決很想逃避的時候」
Leave me alone – 字面上解釋是「不要管我讓我一個人獨處或是你走開啦」,但語氣比較平和地講的時候也可以表達「可以讓我靜一靜嗎?/ 給我一點時間冷靜好不好?」
She always says when she doesn’t know something, or hasn’t read a book, or seen a film or a play, whereas I fake it and say something like “I haven’t seen it for a while”.
(她不知道的事情或是還沒看過的書、電影或戲劇,她就會老實說沒看過,不像我會裝懂的說「我很久沒看了」。)
這句我自己講的話一定會分很多句才能表達清楚…自己也做筆記學起來
分享我很喜歡的這段原文吧!
(這段是Charlie 講 Nicole 的部分,若對於 Nicole 講 Charlie 的部分也有興趣的話,
留言跟我說喔!)
What I love about Nicole…
she makes people feel comfortable about even in front of embarrassing things. She really listens when someone is talking. Sometimes she listens too much for too long.
She’s a good citizen.
She always knows the right thing to do when it comes to difficult family shit. I get stuck in my ways, and she knows when to push me and when to leave me alone.
She cuts all our hair.
She’s always inexplicably brewing a cup of tea that she doesn’t drink. And it’s not easy for her to put away a sock, or close a cabinet, or do a dish, but she tries for me.
Nicole grew up in LA around actors, and directors, and movies and TV, and is very close to her mother, Sandra and Cassie, her sister.
Nicole gives great presents.
She is a mother who plays, really plays. She never steps off playing or says it’s too much. And it must be too much some of the time.
She’s competitive.
She’s amazing at opening jars because of her strong arms, which I’ve always found very sexy.
She keeps the fridge over-full. No one is ever hungry in our house.
She can drive a stick.
After that movie, All Over The Girl”, she could’ve stayed in LA and been a movie star, but she gave that up and do theater with me in New York.
She’s brave.
She’s a great dancer, infectious. She makes me wish I could dance.
She always says when she doesn’t know something, or hasn’t read a book, or seen a film or a play, whereas I fake it and say something like “I haven’t seen it for a while”.
My crazy ideas are her favorite things to figure out how to execute.
She’s my favorite actress.
get around the problem中文 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的最佳解答
[專頁公告] 有關我對BBC記者向蔡總統提問的貼文,存在一些爭議。或許是我表達的不夠清楚,而此一事件也有其複雜性,因此經大家傳來傳去後,遂造成諸多不必要的誤解與糾紛。於此,對該貼文的疏漏表達歉意的同時,我也想藉這個機會,向大家澄清我的個人觀點,並提供具體的說明。
坦白說,當我第一時間聽到這個問題時,我並不是很高興:
原本文章和影片:http://bit.ly/36QOKNP (請務必閱讀背景資料)
完整影片:https://youtu.be/yKVW475EnA4?t=6421
影片內文:
Thank you very much, and congratulations first, President Tsai, on tonight’s result. A few months ago, you were struggling in the polls. Many people suggest that the turnaround in your fortunes is because of the actions of China. Its threats that you mentioned tonight. Its putting of the aircraft carriers through the Taiwan Strait, the situation in Hong Kong. So my question to you is this: Do you think you have the Chinese president Xi Jinping to thank for this victory.*
非常感謝您,蔡總統,首先祝賀今晚的結果。幾個月前,您在民意調查中苦苦掙扎。許多人認為,您命運的轉變是由於中國的行動。誠如您今晚提到的威脅──航空母艦通過臺灣海峽以及香港的局勢。因此我對您的提問是:您認為您應該向中國國家主席習近平為這次的勝利表示感謝嗎?*
*您認為您的勝利歸因於中國國家主席習近平嗎?
have sb to thank (for sth) 對(某人)感謝
1. to say that you are grateful to someone who is responsible for something good happening. This expression is sometimes used HUMOROUSLY to mean that you are not grateful for what someone has done.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/…/have-somebody-to-thank-for-do…
2. If you have someone to thank for something, that person is responsible or to blame for it. 由(某人)對……負責;應責怪(某人)
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/…/english/have-sb-to-thank…
★★★★★★★★★★★★
我個人認為,此一提問似乎高估了中國對蔡總統勝選──臺灣人民以自由意志所選出的總統──的影響。不可否認,中國對臺灣的行動已與日俱增,但問題的設定似乎過分強調中國這一因素,而輕忽了臺灣人民的努力。這是我的個人觀點。
在長年旅居美國的生活經驗中,隨處都可聽見以雙關作為諷刺性質的幽默(my sarcasm detector is functional)。事實上,從我的回應也不難看出,我認為不恰當的地方乃在於,提問的內容及其所強調者──中國因素:
The people of Taiwan do not have General Secretary Xi Jinping to "thank" for this democratic victory. They have the sacrifices of thousands of democratic reformers and activists around the world to thank for their right to vote and the right to have their voices heard. It is unfortunate that the threats you mentioned are perceived by some as being responsible for tonight's victory.
臺灣的總統並不需要針對此次的民主選舉「感謝」習總書記。總統和全臺灣的人民需要感謝的是全球成千上萬的為了民主而犧牲的改革者,感謝由於他們奮鬥而獲得的投票權與發表自己意見的權利。不幸的是,一些人似乎認為今晚的勝利應歸因於您所提到的這些威脅。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
毫無疑問,有些人並不同意我的回應。但是,若您稍加觀察,便可發現我是圍繞著「have…to thank、 對(某人)感謝」來進行回應,並提出個人觀點。別人用幽默的語氣問我 ,並不代表我不能以字面上的意涵去作正式甚至有一點俏皮的回應。當時,我若在「thank、感謝」周圍加上引號*,唸起來就會有特別的語氣,或許能更加凸顯我充分理解幽默的部分。不幸的是,我並沒有這樣做,致使許多人不理解我的本意。
*https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
★★★★★★★★★★★★
我之所以撰寫此一貼文,乃為強調我們應該感謝那些為臺灣犧牲奉獻的民主改革者,並向該名記者過於強調中國影響力的問句提出抗議。同時,我也在該篇貼文中附上完整影片的連結,方便讀者理解此一事件的脈絡。我也是純粹當作個人意見發表,而沒有把它變成一篇完整的教學文章。
由於「have sb to thank (for sth)」包含了正面與負面的意涵,而有時也會被幽默地使用。因此幾個小時後(大約凌晨2點),我開始收到一些訊息,告知我並不理解英式幽默。此時我才意識到,自己的貼文不夠明確,使得部分讀者無法理解我為文的重點。在我迅速添加了「have sb to thank (for sth)」的定義後(http://bit.ly/2NnxHv2),便未多想而上床睡覺了。第二天,我下午上班回到家後,卻看到某些針對我貼文所作的評論,認為我不僅對英式幽默缺乏理解,還錯誤地翻譯了該問句。以下,我將對兩種主要的評論作出回應。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
首先,我其實能理解,該名記者嘗試在嚴肅的提問中帶點幽默,但以英文母語者的角度來說,我並不認為他的話「幽默」(至少我個人沒有那種會心一笑的感覺,可能我比較嚴肅)。再者,幽默是非常主觀的,並非所有人都能產生共鳴,尤其是在這麼正式的場合,則更容易造成誤解。對我而言,發言者在正式的場合時,應清楚地意識到,可能會有部分聽眾無法理解自己話語的弦外之音──幽默。畢竟,這是一次全球性的現場直播,真正瞭解英國文化的觀眾,恐怕是少之又少。
即便當時,他是向蔡總統提問而非現場觀眾,但我們都知道(包含該名記者),提問會被口譯員翻成中文,進而讓在場的所有臺灣人聽見。更無消說,蔡總統本就代表全體臺灣人民,向臺灣總統提問,本質上就是向所有的臺灣人民提問。不過,我也相信,該名記者之所以使用此一詞彙,乃為營造幽默的氛圍,並傳達他個人對總統大選與臺海問題的關注,以探求蔡總統對此一議題的洞見。坦率地說,我也沒有資格去干涉專業記者發問的方式,況且他本人的風格本就較為犀利(他揭露了中國無數的人權問題,並進行了諸多報導)。
又我個人認為,無論記者的本意為何,這樣的表達方式並不恰當,尤其是在這麼重要的場合的第一個問題。我由衷地覺得,有評論指出我反應過度,其實是可以理解的。但我個人還是希望,外國記者在正式的國際場合中,能尊重臺灣得來不易的民主,同時也照顧到聽眾的感受。而蔡總統隨即報以微笑,則是展現出她總統的高度與格局。我想,即便蔡總統內心有所想法,也不會在這麼正式的場合中表露出來。因此,微笑絕對是最好的回應。口譯員之所以略過此一問題,很可能是擔心會引發爭議。而影片中,您可以清楚的看到,相鄰的記者於微笑的同時,也搖了搖頭。我想,「幽默」是否適合這種情況,每位觀眾都會有自己的看法。
此處的討論已超出語言的闡釋與翻譯,以及對單詞涵義的理解。我個人認為,那些將我的貼文化約為「不理解英式幽默」的評論,實已淡化了語言的社會、政治與文化脈絡。惟遺憾的是,我當時也未闡明自己的思路,沒有提供足夠的背景資訊。因此,這導致了諸多不必要的困惑。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
其次,我注意到某個粉絲專頁。該專頁在隔天下午發表了一篇文章,內容是關於我如何藉由「要感謝某人(某物)」的字面翻譯,來誤解該名BBC的記者。但這樣片面的說法,似無法詳實的呈現我該篇貼文的本意,也忽略了我所提供的資訊。
have sb to thank (for sth)
1. to say that you are grateful to someone who is responsible for something good happening. This expression is sometimes used HUMOROUSLY to mean that you are not grateful for what someone has done.
對(某人)感謝
I have Phil to thank for getting me my first job.
https://www.ldoceonline.com/…/have-somebody-to-thank-for-do…
2. If you have someone to thank for something, that person is responsible or to blame for it.
由(某人)對……負責;應責怪(某人)
You have John to thank for this problem.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/…/english/have-sb-to-thank…
★★★★★★★★★★★★
該專頁也認為我誤解了「have sb to thank (for sth)」──僅譯出「感謝」的字面義而無提供其餘意涵──此一片語。但事實上,我的貼文裡早已附上相關資訊。
在言談分析(discourse analysis)中,僅「thank you」一詞就有許多不同的解釋方式。言語的闡釋與翻譯,必須考慮到語調、肢體語言以及社會環境。我絕對不是專業的翻譯,但誠如下列連結的內容所顯示,文字媒體大多只會提供直譯──亦即「感謝」,畢竟要以短短的幾行文字來完整表達講者的意圖,並非易事。因此,絕大多數的文字報導(包含我的貼文)也附有新聞發布會的完整影片,以為讀者提供更清晰的背景與脈絡。同時,記者也會有自己的顧慮(受眾),因此文字的使用必須盡可能地言簡意賅,以與讀者產生共鳴。
https://www.setn.com/news.aspx?NewsID=670861
https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/world/breakingnews/3037675
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-51077553
https://news.pts.org.tw/article/462512
https://hk.news.appledaily.com/.../article/20200112/60476407
I am not a professional translator by any means, but a literal translation is sometimes provided because it is immensely difficult to get across the full intent of the speaker with a few lines of text. Just the phrase "thank you" could be interpreted in diverse ways in discourse analysis. Interpretation and translation of speech require consideration of stress, body language, and social contexts. If the reporters above provided a connotative translation, the language used would be subjective as it would directly reflect what the translator believes to be the speaker's intentional meaning. Thus, a full video of the press conference was included in nearly every one of the reports to provide readers with additional context. Journalists also have pragmatic concerns (reach, readership), so the language used has to be specific, emphatic, and concise. These reasons might offer some insight into why「道謝」was used instead of a connotative translation.
★★★★★★★★★★★★
事後看來,在我發表評論的當下,以及之後所受到的負面評論時,確實有些激動,被批評也是應該的。我個人認為,該名BBC記者過於凸顯中國影響力的問題,對總統以及臺灣人所珍視的民主制度似乎顯得不甚尊重。而我也相信,此亦即該提問之所以造成諸多爭議的原因。事實上,我一直在編輯貼文,希望盡可能地以更客觀的方式來表達我的觀點。但顯然,此前我未能在第一時間評論中作出詳盡的解釋,為此我深感抱歉,也學到了寶貴的經驗。若我的貼文為您帶來諸多不便,我深表歉意。希望本文足以闡明我對此事的想法,並作出具體的澄清。謝謝。