關於 stand out fit in中文 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【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

【外國月亮不是特別圓】

投入國際連結工作好一段時間，有時覺得大家也會期望「外國月亮總是特別圓」，但其實西方國家政治人物支持香港，從來不是理所當然，當中亦會涉及不少商業利益考慮和國際壓力，以及部份左傾政客仍會不知何故地，對中國共產政權抱有良好幻想，這種情況在歐洲較為明顯。

德國左翼黨的國會議員，竟在國會發言表示「理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」固然讓人大跌眼鏡，尤其是中共從根本地就是循從威權主義和國家資本主義的極右政黨。

有時對於國際政客不理解香港，也是有點無奈，但我們香港作為國際大都會，對於世界各國的抗爭運動，又何嘗不是缺乏足夠理解，只盼在抗爭持續的情況下，香港人能夠繼續努力，讓世界理解我們，與香港同行。

早前睇一份德國國會內嘅辦論，有位Die Linke嘅議員話要支持中共，因為大家都是左翼共產主義支持者，不用分得那麼細。我見內容有所偏頗就寫左篇文。中文翻譯見下文。
Recently, a MP from Die Linke made some remarks about HK, and say they should support CCP as they are friend of Coummunism. I find the claims rather inaccurate hence I wrote this article to provide some rebuttals. Please scroll down for the English translation.

Article in German: https://www.google.com/…/Hongkong-Krise-Pekings-Regierung-b…

近日德國國會內, 一位Die Linke的國會議員Stefan Liebich對香港的事作出評價，這些評價實在令人難以茍同。

Liebich指「Die Linke理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」。但中國共產黨除了名字內有「共產」兩個字外，其實際行動與共產理念差天共地，實在不是Liebich想像中共產主義的好朋友。

中國共產黨是一個極權，除了擴張政治與經濟勢力外，中國共產黨什麼都不會理會。不論是無產階級的死活，或者是工人階級，對於中國共產黨來說只是擴張實力的工具，隨時可以為了經濟或政治利益犧牲或捨棄。 中國共產黨實質上是由一群搜刮民脂民膏致富而滿肚腸肥的黨員領導。中國共產黨甚至對自己的人民進行全天候的監控，打壓、拘捕異見人士。

由此可見，中國共產黨本質上是一個極右政黨，而非Liebich以為的左翼。 北京政府不是以共產理念管治中華人民共和國，反而是以物質主義操縱國民。中國背後並沒有一套穩固的價值觀支撐，唯有金錢才是中國人和中國政府信仰的理念。中國的任何行動，從來都不是由價值推動，而總是由金錢和利益推動。

中國共產黨只是一個「掛羊頭賣狗肉」的「共產」黨，它相當擅長扮演共產主義的支持者，與Liebeich想像中「馬克思主義的的同路人」相差甚遠。我們應該要小心分辨真正的共產主義者與打著共產主義旗號行惡的政權之間的分別。

Leibich亦在發言時提到八國聯軍與相關歷史，指「香港被英國以軍事手段從中國手中搶去。撇除對於中國的批評，我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」。但現實上，清朝是被當時被視為外族的滿洲人統治。當時的「中國」與今天我們認知的中華人民共和國並不是同一個國家。所以，Leibich所指的「香港被英國不公義的殖民」，其實嚴格來說是鴉片戰爭後，香港的管治權從滿洲人手中交到英國人手中。

清朝末期發生申亥革命，中華民國成立。及後因國共內戰，中華民國政府輾轉於1949年12月撤退至臺灣。如果按照Leibich的邏輯，香港主權理應是移交予中華民國政府，而非中華人民共和國。

另外，香港人本來擁有聯合國1960年在《給予殖民地國家和人民獨立宣言》中賦予非自治領土人民自決前途的權利。但因為中國強烈反對港澳被定義為殖民地，而應為「被英國和葡萄牙當局佔領的中國領土的一部分」。中國代表單方面宣稱港澳的地位，都屬中國主權範圍內，甚至指：「聯合國並沒有權討論這些問題。」最後才令香港再名單中被除名，失去前途自決的權利。

而觀乎而今情況，即使香港主權移交予中國後，不公義不但沒有消失，反而更加明顯與嚴重。Leibeich在發言時指「撇除對於中國的批評，我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」，我很希望，他不是指他將無視數以百萬計的少數民族關押在在教育營當中、六四屠城死去的學生、香港早前被實彈近距離射中的兩位男孩、被24小時監控的中國人、捨生取義爭取人權的香港人，而去支持中國共產黨只因其聲稱自己是「共產主義者」。

人權自由是人類文明近百年來的基石，中國共產黨的行為，與絕大部分我們珍視的政治價值並不相容。在任何情況下，我們都不可能支持一個獨裁的殺人政權。

Recently, in the German Bundestag, Stefan Liebich made a few remarks regarding Hong Kong. Mr. Liebeich says his party Der Linke should support their communist friends in Beijing. “Logisch, dass Der Linke Liebich seinen Kommunistenfreunden in Peking wieder den Rücken stärkt.(It is logical that Die Linke Liebich should again support his communist friends in Beijing.)” In my point of view, the Chinese Communist Party is just a party named itself as the “Communist”, what it does in China or in the world is in no way communistic.

PRC is a dictatorship that only takes the expansion of its economic and political power into regard, workers or its people are at its disposal whenever it sees fit. The “Communist” party cares neither about the people, nor the grassroots, it only cares about the economic benefit it gains from its business activities inside and outside PRC. The party leaders are all sitting in their offices with their pockets full of what they gain from exploiting the Chinese workers.
They carry mass surveillance 24/7 throughout China, arrests and detain descendants. Frankly speaking, the CCP is rather right than left.

The Peking Government is not running Communism, but materialism. The only thing the Chinese and the Chinese government worship is the dollar sign, nothing else. They do not take any values or ideology into account. The people are not motivated by values or beliefs, but by the economic benefits they see.

The CCP is not a communist party as Mr. Leibich conceived it is. The CCP is very good at creating the illusion that it represents the Marxist ideas. We should be very careful in examining the differences between those who claim to be communists and those who are communists.

Mr. Leibich also made reference to the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance in the late Qing Dynasty, saying that“ Auch Hongkong ist durch die britische Armee militärisch China abgepresst worden.(Hong Kong has been militarily squeezed out of China by the British army.)” and “Bei aller notwendigen Kritik an der chinesischen KP sagen ich: Es ist gut, dass dieses koloniale Unrecht zu Ende ist. (Despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, I say: It is good that this colonial injustice has come to an end.)”

It is worth clarifying that during that time of History, China was ruled by the Manchus, who were considered as foreigners at the time. China at the time was not the Republic of China we know today. Therefore, Hong Kong was not military squeezed out of PRC but was being colonized by the British in substitution of the Manchus at that time.

Historically speaking, the successor of the Qing Dynasty is the Republic of China, which later was relocated to Taiwan due to the Civil War between 1927 and 1949. And Mr. Leibich’s claim that it is good that colonial injustice has come to an end is inaccurate, too. In this case, Hong Kong, ought to be returned to Taiwan (the Republic of China) but not China (People’s Republic of China), to end the colonial injustice.

What is more, Hong Kongers were supposed to be able to exercise our right to self-determination and really being able to be free from colonialism. Yet Hong Kong was actually removed from the U.N. list of Non-Self-Governing Territories upon PRC’s request.

And clearly, under PRC’s rule, injustice is more than just apparent in Hong Kong currently. Mr. Leibich’s remarks of “despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party”, I truly hope that he is not suggesting that one would neglect the millions of ethnic minorities being detained in re-education camps, those who died in the JuneForth Masaccare, the two young Hong Kong boys who were shot by live rounds, the Chinese who were placed under surveillance 24/7 and all my fellow Hong Konger who are fighting for fundamental rights with their lives, but support the CCP’s action because it claims to be a communist party.

I see of no reason, why anyone should support a dictatorship that would brutally murder its own people. CCP is totally going against what most political ideologies in the world stand for, and I do believe we can all agree on the fundamental rights of all members of the human family that ought to be respected as that is the foundations of human civilization.

Mr. 沒有注意到第一支單曲是 Change，第二支才是 Stand Out, Fit In，在此跟大家說明～
-
❤️ONE OK ROCK Wasted Nights 中文歌詞翻譯：
https://mrlifeday.com/one-ok-rock-wasted-nights-song-story-and-translation/
-
今天 ONE OK ROCK 為大家帶來他們的全新專輯 Eye of the Storm 中的新歌 Wasted Nights 拉！！！版主聽到之後整個噴淚，實在是太好聽了，從一開始的呢喃，漸漸的帶到音樂高潮，配上 TAKA 富有衝擊性的歌聲，直直地打中內心最深處的痛苦及故事😥
-
👉 歡迎追蹤我的粉絲團：
https://www.facebook.com/lifedaymr

👉 歡迎追蹤我的 IG：
https://www.instagram.com/mr.lifeday