【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
「in verbal中文」的推薦目錄:
in verbal中文 在 Alexander Wang 王梓沅英文 Facebook 的精選貼文
【「語言學」、「語言學習」雙角度分析】 BBC 記者的 have sb to thank for 有在諷刺嗎?真的要謝謝維尼嗎?
因為 BBC 記者在蔡英文總統勝選的國際記者會上所問 "Do you have the Chinese President Xi Jinping to thank for this victory? " 一問題,在網路上引起了眾多的討論。
• 短短一句包含核心片語 have sb to thank for 的句子,到底為什麼會引起了那麼多的討論?
今天這篇文章我想從兩部分討論:
(a) 從「語言學」切入討論文意解讀的複雜性
(b) 從「語言學習」切入,探討那對於大部分不是要當專業逐步、同步口譯、不是要當英文老師的大家,學習英文時何去何從。
✔︎ 該記者有沒有在諷刺?
(a) 語言學視角
講話當中,paralinguistic cues (副語言) 也是幫助我們解讀文意很重要的一環。這包含了音量大小、語調、語氣停頓、聲音表情。除此之外,「臉部表情」或是「手勢」這樣的 non-verbal communication 也會幫助我們解讀語意。
這次事件的複雜性之一就來自於大家對於這位 BBC 記者在說該句話時的聲音和臉部表情,到底有沒有諷刺 (sarcasm) 的意味在裡頭有不同的看法。
不管是生活、還是比較正式的英文當中,有些表達方式有可能會因為有沒有特別的「副語言」,產生兩種以上意思。
➠ 「字面」、「逐字」的方式解讀我們會稱為 denotation (literal meaning)
➠ 「衍伸」意義又稱為 connotation (implied meaning, secondary meaning)。
以 have sb to thank for 為例, Macmillan dictionary 就提供給我們 2 個定義:
(1) used in a positive way to say who is responsible for something good
表面上我們看到 thank 就會想到是謝謝,所以第一層字面上含義就可以理解成歸功於、感謝~的意思。
(2) used in a negative way to say who you blame for something bad
但字典裡也提供了另外一層比較負面、歸咎的字義了。但因為表面上「字字都看不出有負面、要拼湊起來才有負面」,可以看到這個片語有他的 connotative meaning.
⚑ 英文裡有些看似簡單的用法,其實都有其複雜性:
1️⃣ Tell me about it. 如果一路語調往下降,其實是在應和人家某見不滿的事情。
2️⃣ That's interesting. 依語調不同,可以是真的表達覺得有趣、也可以是個社交辭令 (實際覺得
滿口胡言、或覺得不盡正確)。
3️⃣ Thank you. 若聽到美國人講的是 Thank U. 把重音放在 U 上,很多時候是在反諷 (but not always)。
4️⃣ You're such a good friend. (一般中文我們講反話,是否這句話也會有兩層意思呢?)
✔︎ 英文該怎麼學勒?
教育部公布的最新課綱,認定高中生要學會 5000 字左右的英文字彙 (有往下調)。但我們仔細想想,have sb to thank for 這每一個字,是否都在 1000 字以內?是的。但我們學了 thank 後就會這個片語的意思嗎?答案是否定的。同樣的大家看看下面幾個用法:
(a) have one's hands full
(b) have a lot on one's plate
(c) out of the blue
(d) work out on and off
下面沒有一個用法的單字難度範圍落在 500 字以外。但是為何「字字看得懂,句句看不懂呢?」
這告訴我們學習英文的時候,要特別注意這些生活常見、口語的片語用法。為了檢定、考試,學完 fall, 學 drop, plummet 是一個方向。但是將已經會的字,做重新的排列組合去學習新的意義,更是另外一個重要但常常被忽略的學習方向。
Photo credit: 三立新聞網
in verbal中文 在 Alexander Wang 王梓沅英文 Facebook 的精選貼文
【「語言學」、「語言學習」雙角度分析】 BBC 記者的 have sb to thank for 有在諷刺嗎?真的要謝謝維尼嗎?
因為 BBC 記者在蔡英文總統勝選的國際記者會上所問 "Do you have the Chinese President Xi Jinping to thank for this victory? " 一問題,在網路上引起了眾多的討論。
• 短短一句包含核心片語 have sb to thank for 的句子,到底為什麼會引起了那麼多的討論?
今天這篇文章我想從兩部分討論:
(a) 從「語言學」切入討論文意解讀的複雜性
(b) 從「語言學習」切入,探討那對於大部分不是要當專業逐步、同步口譯、不是要當英文老師的大家,學習英文時何去何從。
✔︎ 該記者有沒有在諷刺?
(a) 語言學視角
講話當中,paralinguistic cues (副語言) 也是幫助我們解讀文意很重要的一環。這包含了音量大小、語調、語氣停頓、聲音表情。除此之外,「臉部表情」或是「手勢」這樣的 non-verbal communication 也會幫助我們解讀語意。
這次事件的複雜性之一就來自於大家對於這位 BBC 記者在說該句話時的聲音和臉部表情,到底有沒有諷刺 (sarcasm) 的意味在裡頭有不同的看法。
不管是生活、還是比較正式的英文當中,有些表達方式有可能會因為有沒有特別的「副語言」,產生兩種以上意思。
➠ 「字面」、「逐字」的方式解讀我們會稱為 denotation (literal meaning)
➠ 「衍伸」意義又稱為 connotation (implied meaning, secondary meaning)。
以 have sb to thank for 為例, Macmillan dictionary 就提供給我們 2 個定義:
(1) used in a positive way to say who is responsible for something good
表面上我們看到 thank 就會想到是謝謝,所以第一層字面上含義就可以理解成歸功於、感謝~的意思。
(2) used in a negative way to say who you blame for something bad
但字典裡也提供了另外一層比較負面、歸咎的字義了。但因為表面上「字字都看不出有負面、要拼湊起來才有負面」,可以看到這個片語有他的 connotative meaning.
⚑ 英文裡有些看似簡單的用法,其實都有其複雜性:
1️⃣ Tell me about it. 如果一路語調往下降,其實是在應和人家某見不滿的事情。
2️⃣ That's interesting. 依語調不同,可以是真的表達覺得有趣、也可以是個社交辭令 (實際覺得
滿口胡言、或覺得不盡正確)。
3️⃣ Thank you. 若聽到美國人講的是 Thank U. 把重音放在 U 上,很多時候是在反諷 (but not always)。
4️⃣ You're such a good friend. (一般中文我們講反話,是否這句話也會有兩層意思呢?)
✔︎ 英文該怎麼學勒?
教育部公布的最新課綱,認定高中生要學會 5000 字左右的英文字彙 (有往下調)。但我們仔細想想,have sb to thank for 這每一個字,是否都在 1000 字以內?是的。但我們學了 thank 後就會這個片語的意思嗎?答案是否定的。同樣的大家看看下面幾個用法:
(a) have one's hands full
(b) have a lot on one's plate
(c) out of the blue
(d) work out on and off
下面沒有一個用法的單字難度範圍落在 500 字以外。但是為何「字字看得懂,句句看不懂呢?」
這告訴我們學習英文的時候,要特別注意這些生活常見、口語的片語用法。為了檢定、考試,學完 fall, 學 drop, plummet 是一個方向。但是將已經會的字,做重新的排列組合去學習新的意義,更是另外一個重要但常常被忽略的學習方向。
Photo credit: 三立新聞網
in verbal中文 在 Differences in 看到,看完,看好| Chilling Chinese - YouTube 的推薦與評價
![影片讀取中](/images/youtube.png)
The other day I was having a lesson with one student, and we came across a question while discussing the verbal complements in chinese. ... <看更多>
in verbal中文 在 verbal中文-在PTT/IG/網紅社群上服務品牌流行穿搭-2022-08 ... 的推薦與評價
找verbal中文在Dcard與PTT討論/評價與推薦,提供verbally用法,verbally,verbal中文相關資訊,找verbal中文就在網路品牌潮流服飾穿搭. ... <看更多>