[演講技巧] 用對的語言,說給對的人聽:看蕭美琴的 ALEC 演講
Presentality再次幫同學分享政治人物演講技巧。這次Andrew Yang 分析的對象是現任駐美代表蕭美琴 (Ambassador Bi-khim Hsiao)!
★★★★★★★★★★★★
這幾天看到網路上很多人稱讚蕭美琴在美國給的一場演講,是在 American Legislative Exchange Council 大會給的。Youtube 上還有完整的影片。
我就想要從一個英文撰稿人跟演講教練的角度,看一下她到底是哪裡講的好?
Ok, let’s go. First, the speech video itself: https://youtu.be/5ozMcauCjbs
★★★★★★★★★★★★
📌 連開頭都跟傳統台灣官員不一樣
她一開頭,就用一種很 personal 的方式回應主辦單位的介紹:
Thank you Karen for that kind introduction…
畢竟用人家的 first name,就感覺比較親切對不對?通常外交場合,都是用 last name 的。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
📌 而且她跟台灣大部分官員用英文演講的時候有一個很不一樣的地方:
她講話的時候,是看著聽眾的 lol。
你可能會覺得搞啥啊,講話不是就要看著對方嗎?但其實很多台灣官員可能是語文能力關係,或是沒時間把稿子弄熟,演講的時候大部分的時間是盯著稿子的,所以跟聽眾的 connection 真的就會打折扣。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
📌 另外一個小細節,就是她的節奏。
台灣很多官員不只是唸稿,還唸的斷斷續續,不停的卡住,蕭美琴就不一樣,講的算是非常流暢,尤其到後半段整個進入一個很好的 flow。
大家可能會覺得這只是英文好,但其實不完全是。我們也看過很多英文比蕭大使還要好的人,演講超級卡。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
📌 講「對的字」,給對的聽眾
第二個細節,就是她的用字遣詞。
我們注意這裡:
I’m so honored to be able to be here in person, to use this occasion to express my gratitude… to the so many outstanding freedom-loving legislators around the United States.
還有這裡,講到主辦單位 ALEC 頒獎給蔡總統,她說:
It is also recognition for the freedom-loving people of Taiwan, and our determination to keep Taiwan free.
我們要指出的共通點在哪裡?
對,就是 “Freedom-loving”。
我在美國住十幾年,從大學到研究所到華府工作,周圍的朋友大多都是左派的,我不記得他們之中有任何人,任何一次,說過 “freedom-loving” 或甚至強調 freedom。這代表蕭大使真的很會對「對的人」說「對的話」。
她知道這群聽眾是美國保守派的,「自由」對他們來說是絕對的價值跟原則。所以一說完這段,就迎來熱烈的掌聲。
我猜今天如果蕭大使對的是左派的聽眾,她肯定不會一直提到這些字眼。
她也不忘用 “side-by-side” 的語法,來強調台灣跟美國的價值。很多台灣官員都只會制式的重複:We share with you the values of freedom and democracy, blah blah blah…
但蕭大使就做一點變化:
I often say that you are living in the land of the free.
We are living on the island of the free.
Good line,又迎來一些掌聲。
*Btw, 為什麼是 “land of the free” 而不是 land of free 或是 free land?因為自由的不是土地,而是「人」,所以美國人才會說 “we are a free people”。所以 “the free” 代表的其實是「自由的人」。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
📌 掌控敘事 (Narrative)
我們再來看一段非常不錯的:
We also believe that it is only in societies that respect the freedom of speech, where true innovation can propel technology that advances human progress, instead of technology that is abused and used for surveillance and controlling their people.
美國時常有很多的辯論:我們應該要把什麼項目放在第一?科技進步?經濟成長?還是民主價值?
我在美國唸外交時,幫我們上課的前官員也會說:「我們先不要硬推民主,而是先幫助這些國家經濟成長,之後他們自然就會變成民主國家。」
蕭美琴的這段,就是一個反向的論述:如果沒有言論自由,就不會有真正的創新,因為科技會被用來控制人民,而不是真的改善大家的生活。
這就是敘事 (narrative) 的重點:不是只是提供一大堆 information 給大家 (this is what most people do),而是告訴大家要怎麼去「詮釋」這些資訊 (跟我們時常在說的 “framing” 有關)。
絕大部分台灣官員出去演講的時候,是完全沒有核心論述的,就只有提供一堆人家沒興趣也永遠不會記得的 information。
Can you spell B-O-R-I-N-G?
引用對方可以體會的經歷
講完一些硬一點的議題之後,她把話題帶到比較個人的層面:
I’m an ambassador now, I work in Washington, DC, but I used to be like you, I came from a legislature in Taiwan, I understand that all politics are local. And when we go back to our constituents, we wanna deliver on economic progress, we wanna deliver on the common values that we share.
說到個人經歷,突然感覺比較輕鬆,溫和對不對?這是一種非常好跟聽眾建立連結的方式,畢竟不是每一位外交官,都有跟聽眾同樣的經歷,所以她很會利用自己的強項。
但她這麼說,可是有目的:把聽眾的注意力帶到 “economic progress for constituents” 之後,她馬上用大家可以理解的數字,提醒聽眾台灣對美國「地方經濟」的重要性:
We’re in the State of Utah now, [Taiwan’s] size is only 15% the size of Utah, but we are the 8th largest consumer of US agricultural products in the world.
然後還不忘轉換成人均的數字!
Which means, per capita wise, each Taiwanese citizen is the second largest consumer — per capita wise — the second largest consumer of American agricultural products.
蠻厲害的對不對?但這樣還沒有結束喔!
★★★★★★★★★★★★
📌 需要完整分析的同學請留言「用對的語言,說給對的人聽!」。
還有, 快快訂閱Presentality,即時收到這些精闢分析!!!
圖片出處: https://bit.ly/3u6mHpL
同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...
「good american ambassador」的推薦目錄:
- 關於good american ambassador 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於good american ambassador 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC(Taiwan) Facebook 的最讚貼文
- 關於good american ambassador 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
- 關於good american ambassador 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文
- 關於good american ambassador 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
- 關於good american ambassador 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳解答
good american ambassador 在 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC(Taiwan) Facebook 的最讚貼文
【永續發展好夥伴🤝 🇹🇼🇺🇸🇯🇵台美日GCTF視訊工作坊】
#台灣 #美國 #日本
首度在聯合國大會期間共同舉辦
「透過公私夥伴關係促進國際發展」視訊工作坊
有超過 20 個國家
高達百位官員及學者專家參加
這趴根本大咖雲集啊~~~
#JW部長 美國在台協會 AIT #酈英傑處長
美國駐聯合國常任代表 #KellyCraft 大使
日本台灣交流協會台北事務所副代表 #橫地晃
也與大家視訊熱線致詞
共同肯定舉辦公私夥伴的GCTF工作坊意義重大
雖然UN及許多重要國際組織
長期將台灣拒於門外
但台灣協助開發中夥伴推動永續發展的努力與成效
透過公私協作達成聯合國 SDGs 的經驗與成果
是不容忽視的
JW部長也說了
台灣做為 #世界一股良善力量 及可信賴的夥伴
可分享許多經驗並做出貢獻
#全球合作暨訓練架構
#台美日民主連線
#理念相近國家
本部新聞稿 👉 https://bit.ly/3jhPPV2
⛽資訊補給站
GCTF (Global Cooperation and Training Framework) 合作平台於2015年成立來已舉辦26場國際研習營,邀請來自53個國家,超過850位相關領域的政府官員及專家與會,成果豐碩。在此既有良好合作基礎上,台灣將持續透過GCTF與美國、日本及其他理念相近國家與友邦,深化在全球事務上的實質合作。
This year’s fourth virtual Global Cooperation and Training Framework webinar was recently co-hosted by MOFA, the American Institute in Taiwan and the Japan-Taiwan Exchange Association, featuring speakers from #Taipei, #NewYork and Tokyo, addressing how public-private partnerships can help in achieving international development goals.
Over 100 officials from 20 countries took part. Among the speakers was US permanent representative to the United Nations, Ambassador Kelly Craft, who called #Taiwan “a force for good in the world” and acknowledged our commitment to #education, #health, and #CivilLiberties. She also echoed recent calls at the #UNGA for Taiwan’s inclusion in the United Nations.
MOFA Minister Joseph Wu spoke of how Taiwan has lots of expertise to share with the world and lots to contribute.
Read Ambassador Craft’s address in full here: https://bit.ly/2GmvyPD
Watch AIT Director Brent Christensen’s remarks here: https://bit.ly/36i2xiQ
#GCTF #RealFriends #RealProgress #SDG17 #PartnershipsForTheGoals
good american ambassador 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳貼文
‘Ways of the World’: Don’t judge by words but by actions (Lee Yee)
The tables are turned as the Sino-US relations have reverted to half a century ago. No, it is even worse.
In 1969, the evil flames of the Cultural Revolution were still burning and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) led the blind crowd to shout every day, “Down with American Imperialism, Down with Soviet Union Revisionism.” During that year, there was the Sino-Soviet border conflict between the Soviet Union and China in the vicinity of Zhenbao (Damansky) Island. The border clashes were so serious that the Soviet Union was ready to employ nuclear weapons on China’s nuclear military base. At that time, the Soviet ambassador to the US informed the US National Security Advisor Heinz Alfred Kissinger of this intention, hoping that the US would remain neutral. However, President Nixon categorically rejected as he believed once Pandora's box of nuclear weapons was opened, the entire world would kneel before the polar bear. He opposed the Soviet’s operation and leaked the news to a newspaper for publication. China immediately called “the entire nation to enter a ‘Ready to fight’ mode.” The actions of the Soviet Union were contained and the nuclear disaster did not occur.
The following year, in 1970, Mao Zedong invited American pro-CCP journalist Edgar Snow who made a trip to China for an informal talk. Snow might have been entrusted by Nixon to investigate the possibility of breaking the ice in Sino-US relations. In July 1971, Dr. Kissinger made a secret visit to Beijing and facilitated Nixon’s ice-breaking journey to China the year after, and thus began the China and US strategic interactions.
After the Cultural Revolution, China and the US established diplomatic relations in 1979. In that same year, Deng Xiaoping visited the US. On the plane, he said to his associate, “As we look back in the past few decades, all those countries that were in good relations with the US have prospered.”
China has indeed become rich. The American policymakers and businesses all expected that economic freedom would lead China towards political freedom, but no such thing happened. On the contrary, China’s authoritarian politics became harsher and harsher and finally fulfilled Nixon’s frightful prophecy: fearing that he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP.
If dictatorship does not carry out political reforms in response to economic needs, then all dictators will eventually become a giant monster. What is more terrifying than any other dictators in history is that the US and the Western world have fattened China. Rich and powerful in military strength, its money and influences have penetrated across the globe, giving rise to a situation of what US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo described in his speech last week, “If we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build...If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us.”
Pompeo’s speech not only declared the start of the cold war between the US and China, but also signified that a tougher, close-to-war era is looming.
He quoted President Reagan’s saying, that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, said Pompeo, they must “distrust and verify.” “Trust but verify” means they would trust what one says but also observe how one acts; “distrust and verify” on the other hand, means they do not listen to what the person says, but only watch what the person does. Facing deterioration of the relationship with the US, the CCP keeps saying both parties should resume dialogue. But the US is fed up with dialogues. As Pompeo said, all the dialogues with Yang Jiechi are nonsense.
Comparing with speeches made by Chinese politicians, which are often lacking substance but full of self-praise, what touched me most about Pompeo’s speech was how he acknowledged and reflected on previous policy mistakes. He said, “Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a ‘peaceful rise.’”
Actually, being naive, triumphalist, hoodwinked, were all one, or all of the mistakes committed by numerous countries, investors, people in the past 50 years. Now Pompeo, openly reflecting on these, suggested that the US has completely awakened. Yesterday, Xinhua News Agency was still mumbling about “China-US cooperation would be a win-win situation; fighting against each other would only lead to a lose-lose one.” From the US point of view, the win-win of working together only means China would win twice; when fighting against each other, it would be lose-lose, losing twice for China.
Over a hundred years ago, Alexis de Tocqueville, a French historian famous for his studies on the new world’s politics and culture, said, “America is great not because she is cleverer than the other countries, but she is more capable of repairing mistakes she made.” This is down to the fact that the US has sufficient freedom of speech, which China lacks. And it is exactly because China prohibits people from “unwarranted public distortion” of the central government, that it keeps making mistakes, again and again.