Apple chief executive Steve Jobs has broken his silence over Foxconn's suicide scandal. He says Foxconn is not a sweatshop and the suicide rate at the company's manufacturing base in Shenzhen is below the per capita rate in the United States.
Jobs defended Apple's major contractor at the top technology executives' annual gathering D8 conference in California, declaring his firm is on top of the situation at Foxconn.
"I can tell you a few things that we know: Foxconn is not a sweatshop. It's a factory, but they have restaurants and movie theaters," Jobs said. "They've had some suicides and attempted suicides. They have 400,000 people there. The rate is under what the US rate is, but it's still troubling."
Why did Jobs feel he had to defend Foxconn with remarks that may be considered controversial at present? Apple's iPads may provide the answer.
Since iPad first hit the market 60 days ago, the American technology giant has sold more than two million units. The frenzy is more intense than that of iPhone's launch in 2007. But, after 10 deaths at Foxconn's Shenzhen plant, labor right activists have called for a boycott of Apple products because Apple is Foxconn's biggest client.
It is clear in Jobs' statement that he has no intention of replacing Foxconn, especially now as it would undermine the launch of its best-selling iPad.
But how can Apple protect its most important revenue driver? Rumors are rife the California-based company will pay an extra amount to Foxconn workers by setting aside about 2 percent of the final retail price for a given product to subsidize Foxconn's pay raise.
If true, it would be a revolutionary initiative. By donating a tiny fraction of iPad revenues to workers' pay, Jobs will be putting a humanistic face on iPad, defending it against boycott calls. No wonder Foxconn is increasing workers' wages by 30 percent instead of the earlier projected raise of 20 percent.
Elsewhere in China, Honda is also moving fast to end the strike by more than 1,800 workers at its Foshan parts plant by offering a 24 percent pay hike.
Are there any lessons to be learned from the Foxconn suicide scandal and Honda's strike? The immediate reaction in the West is they serve as a wake-up call for multinational companies to reconsider their strategies in choosing China as the destination of choice to set up production lines because of the mainland's low labor costs.
This seems to be an alarmist warning. As said before, the double-digit pay rises won't immediately affect China's role as the world's major manufacturing base because, given the small base, salary payouts will still be relatively limited.
If the same happened elsewhere - say, British Airways - the airline would have to shut down immediately.
Hopefully, the intense public discussions about Foxconn will arouse the authorities' attention to genuine sweatshops across the mainland, where workers are not even paid the minimum wages, while having to toil long hours in dangerous and dirty environments.
This is the area deserving greater attention.*Overset by 610.*
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
2010年6月3日星期四
Fly tonight!
It's every singer's dream to have his orher own concerts. Having one's ownconcerts means one is famous and one'swork has been recognised by the generalpublic.
I know there's still a long way to go forme, but I'm thankful for everyopportunity I'm given. It was an honourfor me to be able to sing at 529 Fly ToniteLive, which was held at the Venetian inMacau, with artistes from Taiwan, Chinaand South Korea. The concert wasorganised by my label to celebrate theestablishment of a new Asianentertainment brand "bma seed". Itwas particularly special to me as Iwas able to sing in my hometown,with friends and family in theaudience supporting me. Also I wouldreally love to thank my fanswho came all the way fromHong Kong to see me atthe concert.
However, I had a littleaccident at the pressconference the day before.Since my heels were sohigh I lost my balance andfell flat on my face. I wasmortified ( 窘)! But it wastouching that everybodycame to comfort me at thebackstage afterwards.And for this concert Iwould like to give my specialthanks to Patrick, who designedmy "Iron Man" dress (LED lightswere put underneath thedress). Also many thanks forMing and Pinko's help, as youtwo always make me look greatonstage.
Let's hope I will have my ownconcerts very soon. Wish meluck!
Writer's Profile
Chita Yu (余翠芝), in love with music since three. Make A LoveSong-her goal in music as well as the title of her firstEP-was released last year.
I know there's still a long way to go forme, but I'm thankful for everyopportunity I'm given. It was an honourfor me to be able to sing at 529 Fly ToniteLive, which was held at the Venetian inMacau, with artistes from Taiwan, Chinaand South Korea. The concert wasorganised by my label to celebrate theestablishment of a new Asianentertainment brand "bma seed". Itwas particularly special to me as Iwas able to sing in my hometown,with friends and family in theaudience supporting me. Also I wouldreally love to thank my fanswho came all the way fromHong Kong to see me atthe concert.
However, I had a littleaccident at the pressconference the day before.Since my heels were sohigh I lost my balance andfell flat on my face. I wasmortified ( 窘)! But it wastouching that everybodycame to comfort me at thebackstage afterwards.And for this concert Iwould like to give my specialthanks to Patrick, who designedmy "Iron Man" dress (LED lightswere put underneath thedress). Also many thanks forMing and Pinko's help, as youtwo always make me look greatonstage.
Let's hope I will have my ownconcerts very soon. Wish meluck!
Writer's Profile
Chita Yu (余翠芝), in love with music since three. Make A LoveSong-her goal in music as well as the title of her firstEP-was released last year.
Three--pronged approach
YESTERDAY the government released aconsultation framework on subsidising homeownership. As it had become known, thegovernment decided to keep the consultation exerciselow low--key. Though the government insists that it hastaken no position on the issue, it is clear from thedocument how it is inclined. Furthermore, nothing in itshows it is the government's policy objective to findways to straighten housing supply and demand out bymeans of the consultation exercise with a view tobringing about a healthy property market.
It is a major policy matter whether the governmentshould subsidise home ownership. The findings of theconsultation would affect many citizens. Thegovernment used to be rigorous in consulting thepublic about such an important matter (like health carefinancing). It used to call a press conference to givethe public information on it and meticulously follow therequired procedure. However, the consultationdocument was only posted on a special page on theTransport and Housing Bureau's website. No hardcopies of it have been prepared. As press storiesabout it can only be given limited space, those whohave no computers cannot read the full text of it. Asthey may not grasp the crux of the matter, it is indeeddoubtful that they can offer well well--considered, objectiveviews.
The consultation runs for about three and a halfmonths and closes on September 17. Secretary forTransport and Housing Eva Cheng has to submit herhomework to Chief Executive Donald Tsang so that hecan tackle the question of property prices goingbeyond middle class citizens' means in his policyaddress next October. The important consultationexercise will be kept low low--key. Unless it is broadlybased, it may be what the government uses topackage its own views as the public's.
Though Eva Cheng has stressed that thegovernment has taken no position on the issue, it isclear that the framework gives a negativerepresentation of many people's suggestion that thegovernment should revive the Home OwnershipScheme (HOS). For example, about land resourcesimplications, it says, "If land for PRH (public rentalhousing) development is to be used for subsidisedhousing, the long long--term land supply problem for PRHdevelopment would be exacerbated exacerbated." ."
If only the government makes long long--term planning,there will be sufficient land for PRH, private housingand HOS development. There is no problem of land forother sorts of housing being used for HOSdevelopment. Were there any problem, it would be ofthe government's own making and have nothing to dowith the HOS. The statement does smack of thegovernment's desire to sling mud on subsidisedhousing. The so so--called consultation is biased.
The framework says, "Some have pointed outthat, as shown from past trends in the property market,HOS flats cannot help curb the prevailing propertyprices." We have suggested that the governmentsuitably revive the HOS, but we have not done sobecause we want property prices curbed. In the pastthree decades, HOS flats were produced, but privateflat prices kept going up. The purpose of producingHOS flats is to offer flats sandwich class citizens canafford so that they can fulfil their dreams of owing theirown homes. That it would cause the property market tocollapse to revive the HOS is a groundless threat.
Never has the HOS caused the property market tocollapse. This is a fact. The property market crashedsoon after the handover. However, it did not becauseof the HOS but because of the impact of the Asianfinancial turmoil, the burst of the dotcom bubble andthe SARS outbreak.
In the final analysis, the problem with Hong Kong'sproperty market is that supply is out of equilibrium withdemand.
We urge that the government do three thingssimultaneously. It should, first, reorganise itself so thata single department will implement its housing policy;second, scientifically ascertain housing demand andaccordingly plan land supply; and third, resume regularland auctions and suitably revive the HOS. Only if itmakes strategic long long--term plans and does what mayhelp increase flat supply can it avert severe housingsupply supply--demand imbalance and prevent property pricesfrom roller roller--coastering.
交差式諮詢難有突破理順樓市須三管齊下
2010.06.02明報社評
政府就資助市民自置居所問題，昨日發表諮詢框架，正如事先已知的情况，這次諮詢以低調方式進行，雖云政府無立場，從內容所見，傾向卻甚為明顯，而且未看到政府要透過這次諮詢，尋求理順房屋供求，長遠地營造一個健康樓市政策的目標。
政府是否資助市民置業，其實是一項大政策，諮詢結果影響許多市民，類似這樣的大政策，例如醫療融資，政府都以較嚴謹做法處理——召開記者會公告周知、甚至發表諮詢文件等，相關程序做得一絲不苟。這次諮詢框架的資料，只上載在運輸及房屋局網頁內特別闢設的一個專頁。由於沒有文件，傳媒報道諮詢的內容有局限，若無電腦的市民，難窺全豹，在不了解問題的實質下，他們能否提供成熟客觀意見，實屬疑問。
這次諮詢到99 月17 日結束，諮詢期約33 個半月，運輸及房屋局長鄭汝樺要交功課，讓行政長官曾蔭權在10 月發表施政報告時，回應樓價高企下中產人士置業難的訴求。這樣一個重要諮詢以低調處理，若未經市民廣泛參與回響，可能結果是經過諮詢包裝的官意，由曾蔭權在施政報告宣示政策，能否對症下藥，實屬疑問。鄭汝樺雖然強調政府並無立場，但是對於不少人提出的復建居屋建議，諮詢框架明顯地以負面表述。例如，關於資助房屋對土地資源的影響，諮詢框架認為「把發展公屋用地用作興建資助房屋，長遠而言，公屋發展的土地供應問題將會惡化」。
在土地供應方面，只要有長遠規劃，公屋用地、私樓用地、居屋用地，三者並行不悖，根本就沒有資助房屋佔用了其他房屋土地的問題。若有問題，也由政府一手做成，並非居屋的問題。政府的表述有抹黑資助房屋之嫌，這是所謂諮詢的偏頗之處。
諮詢框架說「不少評論指出，從過往物業市場的軌迹可見，居屋不能遏抑當前的樓價」。我們建議復建適量居屋，並非為了遏抑樓價，事實上，證諸過去30 多年，在居屋與私樓市場同時存在之時，私樓樓價仍然持續攀升，居屋只是給予夾心階層可以負擔、以遂置業安居之夢的選擇。所以， 若說復建居屋會推冧樓市，乃屬毫無根據的恫嚇言詞，歷史上居屋從未推冧樓市，這是事實。就算回歸後樓市一度大崩圍，罪魁禍首也並非居屋，而是歷經亞洲金融風暴、科網股爆破、SARS 等連串衝擊的結果。
今天，本港樓市的問題，歸根究柢是供需失衡。
我們主張政府三管齊下：（ 11）調整架構，或重組職能）分工，由單一部門統籌房屋政策；（ 22）以科學方法，找）出市民對房屋的真實需求，然後規劃土地供應；（ 33）恢）復定期賣地和復建居屋。只有以戰略眼光長遠規劃，從供應面入手，才可以使房屋供應和需求不致過度失衡，樓市不致出現急升暴跌的局面。
G lossary
eexacerbate xacerbate /ek ek''ssaass ???be beIIt/ t/make worse.
making
If a problem is of your own making, it is createdby you rather than by anybody else.
It is a major policy matter whether the governmentshould subsidise home ownership. The findings of theconsultation would affect many citizens. Thegovernment used to be rigorous in consulting thepublic about such an important matter (like health carefinancing). It used to call a press conference to givethe public information on it and meticulously follow therequired procedure. However, the consultationdocument was only posted on a special page on theTransport and Housing Bureau's website. No hardcopies of it have been prepared. As press storiesabout it can only be given limited space, those whohave no computers cannot read the full text of it. Asthey may not grasp the crux of the matter, it is indeeddoubtful that they can offer well well--considered, objectiveviews.
The consultation runs for about three and a halfmonths and closes on September 17. Secretary forTransport and Housing Eva Cheng has to submit herhomework to Chief Executive Donald Tsang so that hecan tackle the question of property prices goingbeyond middle class citizens' means in his policyaddress next October. The important consultationexercise will be kept low low--key. Unless it is broadlybased, it may be what the government uses topackage its own views as the public's.
Though Eva Cheng has stressed that thegovernment has taken no position on the issue, it isclear that the framework gives a negativerepresentation of many people's suggestion that thegovernment should revive the Home OwnershipScheme (HOS). For example, about land resourcesimplications, it says, "If land for PRH (public rentalhousing) development is to be used for subsidisedhousing, the long long--term land supply problem for PRHdevelopment would be exacerbated exacerbated." ."
If only the government makes long long--term planning,there will be sufficient land for PRH, private housingand HOS development. There is no problem of land forother sorts of housing being used for HOSdevelopment. Were there any problem, it would be ofthe government's own making and have nothing to dowith the HOS. The statement does smack of thegovernment's desire to sling mud on subsidisedhousing. The so so--called consultation is biased.
The framework says, "Some have pointed outthat, as shown from past trends in the property market,HOS flats cannot help curb the prevailing propertyprices." We have suggested that the governmentsuitably revive the HOS, but we have not done sobecause we want property prices curbed. In the pastthree decades, HOS flats were produced, but privateflat prices kept going up. The purpose of producingHOS flats is to offer flats sandwich class citizens canafford so that they can fulfil their dreams of owing theirown homes. That it would cause the property market tocollapse to revive the HOS is a groundless threat.
Never has the HOS caused the property market tocollapse. This is a fact. The property market crashedsoon after the handover. However, it did not becauseof the HOS but because of the impact of the Asianfinancial turmoil, the burst of the dotcom bubble andthe SARS outbreak.
In the final analysis, the problem with Hong Kong'sproperty market is that supply is out of equilibrium withdemand.
We urge that the government do three thingssimultaneously. It should, first, reorganise itself so thata single department will implement its housing policy;second, scientifically ascertain housing demand andaccordingly plan land supply; and third, resume regularland auctions and suitably revive the HOS. Only if itmakes strategic long long--term plans and does what mayhelp increase flat supply can it avert severe housingsupply supply--demand imbalance and prevent property pricesfrom roller roller--coastering.
交差式諮詢難有突破理順樓市須三管齊下
2010.06.02明報社評
政府就資助市民自置居所問題，昨日發表諮詢框架，正如事先已知的情况，這次諮詢以低調方式進行，雖云政府無立場，從內容所見，傾向卻甚為明顯，而且未看到政府要透過這次諮詢，尋求理順房屋供求，長遠地營造一個健康樓市政策的目標。
政府是否資助市民置業，其實是一項大政策，諮詢結果影響許多市民，類似這樣的大政策，例如醫療融資，政府都以較嚴謹做法處理——召開記者會公告周知、甚至發表諮詢文件等，相關程序做得一絲不苟。這次諮詢框架的資料，只上載在運輸及房屋局網頁內特別闢設的一個專頁。由於沒有文件，傳媒報道諮詢的內容有局限，若無電腦的市民，難窺全豹，在不了解問題的實質下，他們能否提供成熟客觀意見，實屬疑問。
這次諮詢到99 月17 日結束，諮詢期約33 個半月，運輸及房屋局長鄭汝樺要交功課，讓行政長官曾蔭權在10 月發表施政報告時，回應樓價高企下中產人士置業難的訴求。這樣一個重要諮詢以低調處理，若未經市民廣泛參與回響，可能結果是經過諮詢包裝的官意，由曾蔭權在施政報告宣示政策，能否對症下藥，實屬疑問。鄭汝樺雖然強調政府並無立場，但是對於不少人提出的復建居屋建議，諮詢框架明顯地以負面表述。例如，關於資助房屋對土地資源的影響，諮詢框架認為「把發展公屋用地用作興建資助房屋，長遠而言，公屋發展的土地供應問題將會惡化」。
在土地供應方面，只要有長遠規劃，公屋用地、私樓用地、居屋用地，三者並行不悖，根本就沒有資助房屋佔用了其他房屋土地的問題。若有問題，也由政府一手做成，並非居屋的問題。政府的表述有抹黑資助房屋之嫌，這是所謂諮詢的偏頗之處。
諮詢框架說「不少評論指出，從過往物業市場的軌迹可見，居屋不能遏抑當前的樓價」。我們建議復建適量居屋，並非為了遏抑樓價，事實上，證諸過去30 多年，在居屋與私樓市場同時存在之時，私樓樓價仍然持續攀升，居屋只是給予夾心階層可以負擔、以遂置業安居之夢的選擇。所以， 若說復建居屋會推冧樓市，乃屬毫無根據的恫嚇言詞，歷史上居屋從未推冧樓市，這是事實。就算回歸後樓市一度大崩圍，罪魁禍首也並非居屋，而是歷經亞洲金融風暴、科網股爆破、SARS 等連串衝擊的結果。
今天，本港樓市的問題，歸根究柢是供需失衡。
我們主張政府三管齊下：（ 11）調整架構，或重組職能）分工，由單一部門統籌房屋政策；（ 22）以科學方法，找）出市民對房屋的真實需求，然後規劃土地供應；（ 33）恢）復定期賣地和復建居屋。只有以戰略眼光長遠規劃，從供應面入手，才可以使房屋供應和需求不致過度失衡，樓市不致出現急升暴跌的局面。
G lossary
eexacerbate xacerbate /ek ek''ssaass ???be beIIt/ t/make worse.
making
If a problem is of your own making, it is createdby you rather than by anybody else.
2010年6月2日星期三
think of 和 think about 之別
讀者Jeff 來電郵問，think of 和think about (somebody) 都用來表達想某人，兩者用法有何不同？
同是想人，可有不同的想法。可以睹物思人，偶然想起；也可以刻骨銘心，不能自已。
大部分時間， think of you 和think aboutyou 可以互通。若真的要細分，前者只是浮起一個泛泛的念頭，轉瞬即逝；後者則在腦袋中盤旋不止，甩也甩不掉。如果硬性以時間劃分，think of 只需兩三秒，think about 至少一分鐘或以上。
就以流行歌詞為例。黃霑所寫的︰「當你見到天上星星，可會想起我？」很明顯，歌者不奢望對方會對自己念念不忘，因此用英文可以粗略把它翻譯成：
When you see the bright stars above, do youthink of me?
相反，The Turtles 的Happy Together︰Imagine me and you, I do.
I think about you day and night.
It's only rightto think about the girl you love andhold her tight,So happy together.
既然是朝思暮想（day and night），thinkof you 就不足以表達思念之情，只可用thinkabout you 了。
同是想人，可有不同的想法。可以睹物思人，偶然想起；也可以刻骨銘心，不能自已。
大部分時間， think of you 和think aboutyou 可以互通。若真的要細分，前者只是浮起一個泛泛的念頭，轉瞬即逝；後者則在腦袋中盤旋不止，甩也甩不掉。如果硬性以時間劃分，think of 只需兩三秒，think about 至少一分鐘或以上。
就以流行歌詞為例。黃霑所寫的︰「當你見到天上星星，可會想起我？」很明顯，歌者不奢望對方會對自己念念不忘，因此用英文可以粗略把它翻譯成：
When you see the bright stars above, do youthink of me?
相反，The Turtles 的Happy Together︰Imagine me and you, I do.
I think about you day and night.
It's only rightto think about the girl you love andhold her tight,So happy together.
既然是朝思暮想（day and night），thinkof you 就不足以表達思念之情，只可用thinkabout you 了。
angelina JOLIE
Angelina Jolie, actress and humanitarian( 人道主義者), was born on June 4, 1975 inLos Angeles. She gave a star-makingperformance in the 1998 television film Gia(《霓裳情挑》), which was based on theshort, tragic life of model Gia Marie Carangi.
The role won her a Golden Globe Award forBest Performance by an Actress in aMini-Series or Motion Picture Made forTelevision.
Famous for her off-screen romances,Angelina Jolie has been married twice. Shemarried actor Jonny Lee Miller in 1995. Thecouple divorced in 1999. The next year Joliemarried Academy Award-winning actor BillyBob Thornton. That union lasted until 2003.
Jolie met Brad Pitt during the making ofMr and Mrs Smith (《史密夫決戰史密妻》)in 2004. The couple's first biologicaldaughter Shiloh was born in the Africancountry of Namibia (納米比亞) in 2006. Joliegave birth to twins Knox Léon and VivienneMarcheline on July 12, 2008 in southernFrance. The rights for the first images of thetwins were sold to People and Hello!
magazines for US$14 million. The photos arethe most expensive celebrity pictures evertaken.
The role won her a Golden Globe Award forBest Performance by an Actress in aMini-Series or Motion Picture Made forTelevision.
Famous for her off-screen romances,Angelina Jolie has been married twice. Shemarried actor Jonny Lee Miller in 1995. Thecouple divorced in 1999. The next year Joliemarried Academy Award-winning actor BillyBob Thornton. That union lasted until 2003.
Jolie met Brad Pitt during the making ofMr and Mrs Smith (《史密夫決戰史密妻》)in 2004. The couple's first biologicaldaughter Shiloh was born in the Africancountry of Namibia (納米比亞) in 2006. Joliegave birth to twins Knox Léon and VivienneMarcheline on July 12, 2008 in southernFrance. The rights for the first images of thetwins were sold to People and Hello!
magazines for US$14 million. The photos arethe most expensive celebrity pictures evertaken.
Inter-railing round Europe
Last summer, I went inter-railing allover Europe with three other friends.
Although reasonably popular for UKstudents, it is a rather unfamiliar idea inHong Kong. We bought an inter-rail ticket(which allowed us to get on any train atany time in any European country for aspecific time period), packed a hugerucksack (帆布背囊), and off we went! Wethought we'd travel to Eastern Europebecause it was more unconventionalwewanted to explore the "unknown".
Spanning 10 countries in 16 days, thatwas the bud of my travel bug, one smallreason that spurred (激發) my decision totake a gap year.
First stop: Bruges. "Where?" You mightask. Well, we only choseto go there because wewatched a film a week before calledIn Bruges, in which Colin Farrell starred.(Bruges is in Belgium just in case youdidn't know.)
However, before we even leftHeathrow, our trip was already eventful.We started at the very beginning of July,coinciding with the Wimbledon season.
Being a tennis fanatic (狂熱者) and havingjust been to Wimbledon a few daysbefore, running into Novak Djokovic atStarbucks and having a full-blownconversation with him was momentous.
So the trip went off to a thrilling start. AsI was still in awe by the fact that I talked toone of my favourite tennis players, andthat his autograph filled the first page ofmy Inter-rail diary, the cobbled (鋪有大卵石的) streets, historical medieval (中古的)buildings and canals of Bruges remindedme that my first real adventure hadcommenced, and it would be no less thanlife-altering.
.
Although reasonably popular for UKstudents, it is a rather unfamiliar idea inHong Kong. We bought an inter-rail ticket(which allowed us to get on any train atany time in any European country for aspecific time period), packed a hugerucksack (帆布背囊), and off we went! Wethought we'd travel to Eastern Europebecause it was more unconventionalwewanted to explore the "unknown".
Spanning 10 countries in 16 days, thatwas the bud of my travel bug, one smallreason that spurred (激發) my decision totake a gap year.
First stop: Bruges. "Where?" You mightask. Well, we only choseto go there because wewatched a film a week before calledIn Bruges, in which Colin Farrell starred.(Bruges is in Belgium just in case youdidn't know.)
However, before we even leftHeathrow, our trip was already eventful.We started at the very beginning of July,coinciding with the Wimbledon season.
Being a tennis fanatic (狂熱者) and havingjust been to Wimbledon a few daysbefore, running into Novak Djokovic atStarbucks and having a full-blownconversation with him was momentous.
So the trip went off to a thrilling start. AsI was still in awe by the fact that I talked toone of my favourite tennis players, andthat his autograph filled the first page ofmy Inter-rail diary, the cobbled (鋪有大卵石的) streets, historical medieval (中古的)buildings and canals of Bruges remindedme that my first real adventure hadcommenced, and it would be no less thanlife-altering.
.
暢所欲言A-Z
一起暢所欲言，閒話家常。融會文化及生活的語言，才是活的語言。逢周三刊出。
Hemingway 海明威
海明威（Ernest Hemingway） 是美國記者和作家，寫作風格以簡潔著稱，對美國文學及20 世紀文學的發展有舉足輕重的地位。海明威曾在古巴居住，其間完成了名著《老人與海》，憑此書獲得普立茲獎及諾貝爾文學獎。此外，《戰地春夢》及《太陽依舊升起》兩部作品被美國現代圖書館列入「20 世紀中的100 部最佳英文小說」。
相關字詞
The Old Man and the Sea《老人與海》
A Farewell to Arms《戰地春夢》
The Sun Also Rises《太陽依舊升起》
Hitler 希特勒
希特拉（Adolf Hitler）說過「人類的重要在於它的基本人種，地球上最高級的人種則是雅利安人」和「大自然把主宰的權力授予她的寵兒─最勇敢和最勤奮的強者，強者必統治弱者」。他覺得日耳曼人是最優秀的人種，並透過強調極端的民族主義，使德國人盲目支持他發動戰爭、屠殺他們眼中的「劣等」民族。
相關字詞
the Nazi Party 納粹黨
the Holocaust 大屠殺
concentration camp 集中營
gas chamber 毒氣室
Hawking 霍金
霍金（Stephen Hawking）1942 年生於英國牛津，父親是牛津大學畢業的熱帶病專家，母親於牛津研究哲學、政治和經濟。他童年時學業成績不突出，但喜歡設計極複雜的玩具。其後他入讀牛津大學攻讀自然科學，於1963 年被診斷患有肌肉萎縮性側索硬化症，即運動神經病。當時醫生診斷他只能活兩年，他雖然活下來，但在往後數十年全身逐漸癱瘓並失去說話能力。他於1988 年出版的科普著作《時間簡史：從大爆炸到黑洞》，從研究黑洞出發，探索宇宙起源和歸宿。他曾在英國、美國、日本及香港發表演說。
相關字詞
A Brief History of Time From the Big Bang toBlack Holes《時間簡史：從大爆炸到黑洞》
The Universe in a Nutshell《果殼中的宇宙》
the no-boundary proposal 「宇宙無邊界」
Hemingway 海明威
海明威（Ernest Hemingway） 是美國記者和作家，寫作風格以簡潔著稱，對美國文學及20 世紀文學的發展有舉足輕重的地位。海明威曾在古巴居住，其間完成了名著《老人與海》，憑此書獲得普立茲獎及諾貝爾文學獎。此外，《戰地春夢》及《太陽依舊升起》兩部作品被美國現代圖書館列入「20 世紀中的100 部最佳英文小說」。
相關字詞
The Old Man and the Sea《老人與海》
A Farewell to Arms《戰地春夢》
The Sun Also Rises《太陽依舊升起》
Hitler 希特勒
希特拉（Adolf Hitler）說過「人類的重要在於它的基本人種，地球上最高級的人種則是雅利安人」和「大自然把主宰的權力授予她的寵兒─最勇敢和最勤奮的強者，強者必統治弱者」。他覺得日耳曼人是最優秀的人種，並透過強調極端的民族主義，使德國人盲目支持他發動戰爭、屠殺他們眼中的「劣等」民族。
相關字詞
the Nazi Party 納粹黨
the Holocaust 大屠殺
concentration camp 集中營
gas chamber 毒氣室
Hawking 霍金
霍金（Stephen Hawking）1942 年生於英國牛津，父親是牛津大學畢業的熱帶病專家，母親於牛津研究哲學、政治和經濟。他童年時學業成績不突出，但喜歡設計極複雜的玩具。其後他入讀牛津大學攻讀自然科學，於1963 年被診斷患有肌肉萎縮性側索硬化症，即運動神經病。當時醫生診斷他只能活兩年，他雖然活下來，但在往後數十年全身逐漸癱瘓並失去說話能力。他於1988 年出版的科普著作《時間簡史：從大爆炸到黑洞》，從研究黑洞出發，探索宇宙起源和歸宿。他曾在英國、美國、日本及香港發表演說。
相關字詞
A Brief History of Time From the Big Bang toBlack Holes《時間簡史：從大爆炸到黑洞》
The Universe in a Nutshell《果殼中的宇宙》
the no-boundary proposal 「宇宙無邊界」
A blow to core values
FOOD and Environmental Hygiene Department(FEHD) officers and police officersconfiscated two statues of the Goddess ofDemocracy (of two generations) and a relief (titledTTiiaannaannmmaann MMaassssaaccrree) the Hong Kong Alliance in) Support of Democratic Movements in China haddisplayed in Time Square. They said they had done soaccording to the law. This is the first time the SARgovernment has suppressed activities to mark June 4on the pretext of law enforcement since the incidenthappened twenty twenty--one years ago. We would notconjecture as to the SAR government's motive or aim.
Nor would we conjecture whether it did so of its ownaccord or had been compelled to do so. We only wantto point out that it has dealt a blow to an importantelement of Hong Kong people's core values - theirfreedom of expression - as well as to "one country,two systems". It remains to be seen how the affair willunfold. Will the move deter citizens? We believe theywill give those who think themselves in the right astentorian answer at the next vigil to mark June 4(which falls on next Friday (June 4).
The FEHD and the police were apparentlyresponsible for the operation. They said the Alliancehad displayed the statues and the relief in TimeSquare without having first obtained a licence toorganise public entertainment under the Places ofPublic Entertainment Ordinance.
The key word of the ordinance is "entertainment".Activities organised by the Alliance are by no meansentertainment. They are solemn political activities. It isunjustifiable and absurd for the FEHD to have relied onthe ordinance to seize the statues and the relief. Whenit did so, it vilified the pro pro--democracy movement thathappened 21 years ago and slandered those heroicpeople who died in the armed repression.
As matters stand, the government had carefullyplanned the confiscation of the statues and the relief.That day deputy district commander (Wan Chai)Au Au--yeung Chiu Chiu--kong was there to direct the operation.The confiscation was by no means fortuitous. It is clearthat the operation had been meticulously prepared.
The first first--generation version of the Goddess ofDemocracy was displayed in front of the CulturalCentre in Tsim Sha Tsui many times. After somespace in Time Square had again been made open tothe public, the statute was displayed there at leasttwice. The government had not regarded its exhibitionas illegal. This year it has kicked up a fuss. Theordinance it has relied on does not apply to thesituation. The explanations it has offered are toofar far--fetched to sound acceptable. It is baffling that theSAR government has disrupted the Alliance's activitiesto mark June 4 on the pretext of enforcing the law. Theonly explanation is that it has done so for politicalreasons.
Over the past twenty years, the Alliance hasorganised annual commemorations of June 4. HongKong people have been keen on taking part in them.
Hong Kong people's inflexible stance on June 4 is anindicator of their freedom of expression - a vital part oftheir core values. What the SAR government has doneis essentially to deal a blow to Hong Kong people'score values.
In the wake of June 4, many governments andpoliticians in the West used the incident to gain politicaladvantages. Few of them would mention June 4 anymore. Hong Kong is the only Chinese place wherepeople commemorate June 4 anniversaries. Thatshows Hong Kong people are not opportunist opportunist. It is. worth finding out what the SAR government intends toachieve by suddenly disrupting the Alliance's activities.
The incident reminds us that, last year, the SARgovernment unjustifiably prevented BBaaooddiiaaoo SSeeccoonnddfrom travelling to the Diaoyu Island to assert China'ssovereignty over it. That was the first time the SARgovernment had restricted Hong Kong people'sfreedom of movement and infringed on theirfundamental rights on the pretext of law enforcement.For the first time since June 4 happened twenty twenty--oneyears ago, it has disrupted the Alliance's activities tomark the incident. That is certainly its second attemptto curtail Hong Kong people's freedoms. If the SARgovernment refrains even from protecting Hong Kongpeople's fundamental rights and willingly serves as acat's cat's--paw to help erode their fundamental freedoms, itwill certainly be spurned by many of them.
明報社評2010.06.01
港府干擾紀念六四活動 港人核心價值再遭衝擊
支聯會在銅鑼灣時代廣場擺放的兩個世代「民主女神像」和「天安門屠殺浮雕」，被食環署會同警方人員以「依法辦事」為名，強行沒收。這是六四事件21 年以來，港府首次以法治之名，打壓六四紀念活動。我們不猜測港府的動機與目的，也不猜度港府是主動出擊或被迫出手，我們要指出的是，此事是對港人其中一項核心價值——言論自由的衝擊，也是對一國兩制的衝擊。事態如何發展尚待觀察，不過，今次舉措會否嚇倒港人？本周五（ 66 月44 日）晚上紀念六四的燭光晚會，相信港人會給自以為是的人一個響亮的回應。
表面上，涉及這次事件的是食環署和警務處。他們的法律依據是，支聯會在時代廣場展示新民主女神像及天安門屠殺浮雕，卻未有按照《公衆娛樂場所條例》的規定，向食環署領取臨時公衆娛樂場所牌照。
條例最關鍵之處是娛樂，支聯會紀念六四活動，絕非娛樂，而是嚴肅的政治行為。因此，食環署以這條條例沒收女神像和雕塑，不但牽強和荒謬，對於21 年前死於武力鎮壓的民主英烈和整場民主運動，也是極大的貶損和污衊。
從情况看來，港府早已策劃並安排沒收女神像和雕塑，當日灣仔警區副指揮官歐陽照剛更親自在場指揮，整個沒收行動，絕非偶發事件，顯然經過周密策劃和部署。
支聯會的第一代民主女神像，以往在尖沙嘴文化中心廣場擺放多次，在時代廣場回復公共空間之後，民主女神像也在這裏展示至少兩次。以往港府都未視為違法，今年煞有介事地行動，所援引法例卻是那麼不對題、解說理據是那麼牽強，無法使人信服。所以，除了基於政治考慮，實質進行政治打壓以外，無法理解港府為何假借依法辦事之名，行干擾支聯會紀念六四活動之實。過去20 年，支聯會每年都舉辦紀念六四活動，港人積極參與，港人對六四事件的執著，正是香港核心價值之一——言論自由的重要指標。港府今次的舉措，實質上衝擊着這個核心價值。
1989 年六四事件發生時，西方國家和許多外國政客把事件作為政治本錢，撈取政治利益，如今，這些國家、政客都已經不再提及此事了。但是，港人在中國唯一的地方 ——香港，年年紀念六四，說明港人並不投機。今年港府「突然」干擾支聯會的紀念活動，背後蘊含什麼盤算，值得密切關注。
這件事，使我們想起去年港府以「莫須有」罪名，阻撓「保釣二號」出海，前往釣魚島宣示主權，此事乃回歸以來，港府首次以依法辦事為名，限制港人的行動自由，侵蝕港人的基本權利。六四事件21 年之後，港府首次干擾支聯會的紀念六四活動，肯定是衝擊港人自由的另一次嘗試。若港府連港人的基本權利也不捍衛，甘願成為侵蝕港人基本自由的打手，則這樣的特區政府，勢必為許多港人所唾棄。
Glossary
of one's own accord
If you do something of your own accord, youdo it without being asked.
stentorian /sten sten''tt ɔɔ:r :rII ??n/ n/loud and powerful.
Nor would we conjecture whether it did so of its ownaccord or had been compelled to do so. We only wantto point out that it has dealt a blow to an importantelement of Hong Kong people's core values - theirfreedom of expression - as well as to "one country,two systems". It remains to be seen how the affair willunfold. Will the move deter citizens? We believe theywill give those who think themselves in the right astentorian answer at the next vigil to mark June 4(which falls on next Friday (June 4).
The FEHD and the police were apparentlyresponsible for the operation. They said the Alliancehad displayed the statues and the relief in TimeSquare without having first obtained a licence toorganise public entertainment under the Places ofPublic Entertainment Ordinance.
The key word of the ordinance is "entertainment".Activities organised by the Alliance are by no meansentertainment. They are solemn political activities. It isunjustifiable and absurd for the FEHD to have relied onthe ordinance to seize the statues and the relief. Whenit did so, it vilified the pro pro--democracy movement thathappened 21 years ago and slandered those heroicpeople who died in the armed repression.
As matters stand, the government had carefullyplanned the confiscation of the statues and the relief.That day deputy district commander (Wan Chai)Au Au--yeung Chiu Chiu--kong was there to direct the operation.The confiscation was by no means fortuitous. It is clearthat the operation had been meticulously prepared.
The first first--generation version of the Goddess ofDemocracy was displayed in front of the CulturalCentre in Tsim Sha Tsui many times. After somespace in Time Square had again been made open tothe public, the statute was displayed there at leasttwice. The government had not regarded its exhibitionas illegal. This year it has kicked up a fuss. Theordinance it has relied on does not apply to thesituation. The explanations it has offered are toofar far--fetched to sound acceptable. It is baffling that theSAR government has disrupted the Alliance's activitiesto mark June 4 on the pretext of enforcing the law. Theonly explanation is that it has done so for politicalreasons.
Over the past twenty years, the Alliance hasorganised annual commemorations of June 4. HongKong people have been keen on taking part in them.
Hong Kong people's inflexible stance on June 4 is anindicator of their freedom of expression - a vital part oftheir core values. What the SAR government has doneis essentially to deal a blow to Hong Kong people'score values.
In the wake of June 4, many governments andpoliticians in the West used the incident to gain politicaladvantages. Few of them would mention June 4 anymore. Hong Kong is the only Chinese place wherepeople commemorate June 4 anniversaries. Thatshows Hong Kong people are not opportunist opportunist. It is. worth finding out what the SAR government intends toachieve by suddenly disrupting the Alliance's activities.
The incident reminds us that, last year, the SARgovernment unjustifiably prevented BBaaooddiiaaoo SSeeccoonnddfrom travelling to the Diaoyu Island to assert China'ssovereignty over it. That was the first time the SARgovernment had restricted Hong Kong people'sfreedom of movement and infringed on theirfundamental rights on the pretext of law enforcement.For the first time since June 4 happened twenty twenty--oneyears ago, it has disrupted the Alliance's activities tomark the incident. That is certainly its second attemptto curtail Hong Kong people's freedoms. If the SARgovernment refrains even from protecting Hong Kongpeople's fundamental rights and willingly serves as acat's cat's--paw to help erode their fundamental freedoms, itwill certainly be spurned by many of them.
明報社評2010.06.01
港府干擾紀念六四活動 港人核心價值再遭衝擊
支聯會在銅鑼灣時代廣場擺放的兩個世代「民主女神像」和「天安門屠殺浮雕」，被食環署會同警方人員以「依法辦事」為名，強行沒收。這是六四事件21 年以來，港府首次以法治之名，打壓六四紀念活動。我們不猜測港府的動機與目的，也不猜度港府是主動出擊或被迫出手，我們要指出的是，此事是對港人其中一項核心價值——言論自由的衝擊，也是對一國兩制的衝擊。事態如何發展尚待觀察，不過，今次舉措會否嚇倒港人？本周五（ 66 月44 日）晚上紀念六四的燭光晚會，相信港人會給自以為是的人一個響亮的回應。
表面上，涉及這次事件的是食環署和警務處。他們的法律依據是，支聯會在時代廣場展示新民主女神像及天安門屠殺浮雕，卻未有按照《公衆娛樂場所條例》的規定，向食環署領取臨時公衆娛樂場所牌照。
條例最關鍵之處是娛樂，支聯會紀念六四活動，絕非娛樂，而是嚴肅的政治行為。因此，食環署以這條條例沒收女神像和雕塑，不但牽強和荒謬，對於21 年前死於武力鎮壓的民主英烈和整場民主運動，也是極大的貶損和污衊。
從情况看來，港府早已策劃並安排沒收女神像和雕塑，當日灣仔警區副指揮官歐陽照剛更親自在場指揮，整個沒收行動，絕非偶發事件，顯然經過周密策劃和部署。
支聯會的第一代民主女神像，以往在尖沙嘴文化中心廣場擺放多次，在時代廣場回復公共空間之後，民主女神像也在這裏展示至少兩次。以往港府都未視為違法，今年煞有介事地行動，所援引法例卻是那麼不對題、解說理據是那麼牽強，無法使人信服。所以，除了基於政治考慮，實質進行政治打壓以外，無法理解港府為何假借依法辦事之名，行干擾支聯會紀念六四活動之實。過去20 年，支聯會每年都舉辦紀念六四活動，港人積極參與，港人對六四事件的執著，正是香港核心價值之一——言論自由的重要指標。港府今次的舉措，實質上衝擊着這個核心價值。
1989 年六四事件發生時，西方國家和許多外國政客把事件作為政治本錢，撈取政治利益，如今，這些國家、政客都已經不再提及此事了。但是，港人在中國唯一的地方 ——香港，年年紀念六四，說明港人並不投機。今年港府「突然」干擾支聯會的紀念活動，背後蘊含什麼盤算，值得密切關注。
這件事，使我們想起去年港府以「莫須有」罪名，阻撓「保釣二號」出海，前往釣魚島宣示主權，此事乃回歸以來，港府首次以依法辦事為名，限制港人的行動自由，侵蝕港人的基本權利。六四事件21 年之後，港府首次干擾支聯會的紀念六四活動，肯定是衝擊港人自由的另一次嘗試。若港府連港人的基本權利也不捍衛，甘願成為侵蝕港人基本自由的打手，則這樣的特區政府，勢必為許多港人所唾棄。
Glossary
of one's own accord
If you do something of your own accord, youdo it without being asked.
stentorian /sten sten''tt ɔɔ:r :rII ??n/ n/loud and powerful.
War of words muddles reality
Ever since Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen initiated his "Act Now" offensive, there has been no lack of sarcasm attacking it.
And as the days go by, the gimmicks are getting only more creative. Even Tsang had to admit this on his Facebook page, referring to the creative alteration of the Chinese words for "Act Now" into "All Wrong" - while keeping the characters 90 percent intact.
Certainly in Tsang's view, what's "all wrong" was the opposition lawmakers ganging up to veto the proposed democratic reforms in 2005.
Minds have changed over time. Politicians have been making the rounds drumming up public support for the 2012 package, and the sessions are starting to liven up.
At a Kwun Tong secondary school yesterday, a teacher became a warrior and students turned into soldiers before the TV cameras, as they confronted Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun- wah during an exchange on democratic development.
The male teacher waved an A3-size paper bearing the "All Wrong" slogan. This was reminiscent of an episode at another school where a female teacher challenged Chief Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen in a similar tone.
There were also confrontations over the police seizure of the replica Goddess of Democracy statues at a pre-June 4 rally. Fortunately, police acted quickly to defuse the potentially explosive situation by returning them yesterday.
The teachers and protesters aren't idiotic. On the contrary, they're smart. But are they right or wrong? It depends on who you ask.
Yet, what is clear is that, however creative the episodes may be, the core question remains the same one that has been repeatedly asked these days - what do we want in 2012?
Do we want nothing to change for the good, or do we want to progress so that the SAR will get closer to its goal of achieving universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020?
The recent creative remarks won't change the bitter consequence that Hong Kong will face in the event the 2012 package is voted down. There will still be the dim likelihood society will be polarized further, with some behaving even more radically. In the end, the general public will be the losers.
It has been suggested the 2012 chief executive and Legislative Council elections should be split up for separate voting, to ensure the passage of at least the less controversial half of the package. This should be the last resort. It's still best to keep them intact during the vote unless it absolutely can't be achieved.
There is also the proposal by the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood to postpone the vote from mid-July to October. But this would only delay the inevitable necessity of choosing between progress and the status quo.
There is no harm in staging the sideshows as long as key players remain focused on the core matter. The rigorous scenes at schools are nothing to fear.
Perhaps the school forums are no longer those that older generations used to understand. But do the non- conventional exchanges give everybody an opportunity to express their views?
In the end, the core issue remains the same.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
And as the days go by, the gimmicks are getting only more creative. Even Tsang had to admit this on his Facebook page, referring to the creative alteration of the Chinese words for "Act Now" into "All Wrong" - while keeping the characters 90 percent intact.
Certainly in Tsang's view, what's "all wrong" was the opposition lawmakers ganging up to veto the proposed democratic reforms in 2005.
Minds have changed over time. Politicians have been making the rounds drumming up public support for the 2012 package, and the sessions are starting to liven up.
At a Kwun Tong secondary school yesterday, a teacher became a warrior and students turned into soldiers before the TV cameras, as they confronted Financial Secretary John Tsang Chun- wah during an exchange on democratic development.
The male teacher waved an A3-size paper bearing the "All Wrong" slogan. This was reminiscent of an episode at another school where a female teacher challenged Chief Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen in a similar tone.
There were also confrontations over the police seizure of the replica Goddess of Democracy statues at a pre-June 4 rally. Fortunately, police acted quickly to defuse the potentially explosive situation by returning them yesterday.
The teachers and protesters aren't idiotic. On the contrary, they're smart. But are they right or wrong? It depends on who you ask.
Yet, what is clear is that, however creative the episodes may be, the core question remains the same one that has been repeatedly asked these days - what do we want in 2012?
Do we want nothing to change for the good, or do we want to progress so that the SAR will get closer to its goal of achieving universal suffrage in 2017 and 2020?
The recent creative remarks won't change the bitter consequence that Hong Kong will face in the event the 2012 package is voted down. There will still be the dim likelihood society will be polarized further, with some behaving even more radically. In the end, the general public will be the losers.
It has been suggested the 2012 chief executive and Legislative Council elections should be split up for separate voting, to ensure the passage of at least the less controversial half of the package. This should be the last resort. It's still best to keep them intact during the vote unless it absolutely can't be achieved.
There is also the proposal by the Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood to postpone the vote from mid-July to October. But this would only delay the inevitable necessity of choosing between progress and the status quo.
There is no harm in staging the sideshows as long as key players remain focused on the core matter. The rigorous scenes at schools are nothing to fear.
Perhaps the school forums are no longer those that older generations used to understand. But do the non- conventional exchanges give everybody an opportunity to express their views?
In the end, the core issue remains the same.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
2010年6月1日星期二
Copycat
IT is said that The Mysteries of Love, a TVBseries, is a pirate version of Galileo, a JapaneseTV series. That has aroused Japanese media'sattention and Japanese netizens' criticism. It is hard toprove in law a work is a copy of another. However, thehero and heroine of the TVB series are respectively aphysicist and a policewoman like those in Galileo. Theway they talk and the scenes in which they appear areredolent of Galileo, so much so that TVB cannotescape being called a copycat. Hong Kong TV seriesonce thrilled Chinese people in all parts of the world,and Hong Kong has been bent on developing itscreative industry. However, if Hong Kong producersonly learn from foreign series instead of setting greatstore by originality, it will be doubly hard to developHong Kong's creative industry.
Galileo has its peculiarities. For example, physicistYukawa Manabu (its hero, played by FukuyamaMasaharu) typically covers his nose with his handwhen he ponders on a case. In his laboratory there is ablackboard cluttered with incomprehensiblemathematical expressions. When they viewed the firstepisode of The Mysteries of Love, people immediatelynoticed its many similarities with the Japanese series.
Lau Ka-ho, producer of the The Mysteries of Love,said, "We are creative workers; we never copy!" Thatmay be the case in law. Furthermore, if the heroes andheroines of the two series deal with entirely differentcases though they have similar capacities and appearin similar sets, TVB's series can hardly be called acopy in law. Nevertheless, though what TVB has doneis legally defensible, it does not follow that the series isrespected.
It is absolutely wrong to say Hong Kong peopleare not creative. A few years ago, Infernal Affairs woncritical acclaim and was a huge box-office success. Itsplot of the police and a gang infiltrating into each otherwas extremely well received. Its script caught thefancy of a Hollywood filmmaker, who acquired therights to it and remade it as The Departed, which wona few Oscars. Who says Hong Kong lacks creativepeople?
It is not shameful for creative workers to open theireyes to the whole world and learn from others' works.However, it is of overriding importance to respectcopyrights. The Hollywood filmmaker acquired therights to the script of Infernal Affairs, a Hong Kong film.If Hong Kong TV stations want to learn from foreignseries, they ought to respect their creators' pains. Ifthey do so, they can conceivably command respect.
One would think that, when a TV station is called acopycat, viewers may exercise the right they have asconsumers and vote with their remotes. However,Hong Kong TV broadcasters occupy valuable free TVchannels. Only two free TV programme servicelicences has been issued. Even if businesses apply forsuch licences, their applications will not be granted inthe foreseeable future. Hong Kong TV series lackoriginality and may be full of plagiarisms mainlybecause there is little competition between the free TVprogramme service licensees. To encourage them todo creative work and to develop Hong Kong's creativeindustry, it is necessary for the government to changeits policy on TV broadcasting. Only if it opens up thefree TV channels and brings in competitors to breakthe monopoly up will people break themselves of theirviewing habits. Only then will creative Hong Kong TVseries come to the fore.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
重模仿輕原創創意產業事倍功半
明報社評
2010.05.31
無綫電視劇《談情說案》被指為山寨版日劇《神探伽利略》，引來日本傳媒關注及日本網民批評。要在法律上指證某一作品屬抄襲，十分困難，然而，《談》劇不論男女主角的物理學家及警察身分、場景設計、男主角說話神態等，都似曾相識，貌似《神》劇，難逃被指模仿之嫌。港產電視劇曾經風靡全球華人，近年香港也銳意發展創意產業，但若港產電視劇只懂「參考」外劇，輕視原創，創意工業勢將事倍功半。
日劇《神探伽利略》有一些招牌特色，例如男主角福山雅治飾演的物理學家湯川學，思考案情時以手指掩鼻遮面的招牌動作；又如實驗室黑板上寫滿深奧難明的數學算式。當無綫電視劇《談情說案》播出時，觀眾立即發現兩劇有不少類同之處。
無綫《談》劇的監製劉家豪強調並無抄襲，又說「我們是創作人，肯定不會抄襲！」法律上來說，這也許是對的，若兩劇只是部分主角身分與場景類似，但具體案件內容全部不同，抄襲在法律上的確難以成立。可是，即使法律上過得了關，不代表劇集會獲得尊重。
香港人絕非沒有創意，例如，幾年前電影《無間道》叫好又叫座，警察與黑幫互派臥底的橋段大獲好評，劇本更獲外國片商垂青，正式洽購版權並改編為荷李活電影《無間道風雲》，更榮獲奧斯卡金像獎。誰說香港沒有創作人才？
創作人放眼世界，參考他人的創作並非醜事，但大前提是必須尊重版權。荷李活也可以名正言順地購入港產片《無間道》的版權，香港電視劇若要「參考」外劇，能夠尊重別人的創作心血，相信也會得到別人的尊重。一家電視台被指涉嫌抄襲模仿，觀眾理應可以運用消費者力量，用手中的遙控器投票，但香港電視台佔用的是極珍貴的免費電視頻道，免費電視牌照只得兩個，即使有財團申請加入免費電視行列，成事仍是遙遙無期。沒有創意、懷疑抄襲的電視劇充斥香港，主要原因是免費電視廣播缺乏競爭。如果要在電視台激勵創意，推動本土創意產業，電視廣播政策必須改變──開放免費電視頻道，打破壟斷，打破慣性收視，引入競爭，有創意的電視劇才有出頭的機會。
Glossary
store
If you set great store by something, youconsider it to be important.
hero
the main male character in a story, film etc.
fancy
If a thing catches a person's fancy, it attracts orpleases him.
Galileo has its peculiarities. For example, physicistYukawa Manabu (its hero, played by FukuyamaMasaharu) typically covers his nose with his handwhen he ponders on a case. In his laboratory there is ablackboard cluttered with incomprehensiblemathematical expressions. When they viewed the firstepisode of The Mysteries of Love, people immediatelynoticed its many similarities with the Japanese series.
Lau Ka-ho, producer of the The Mysteries of Love,said, "We are creative workers; we never copy!" Thatmay be the case in law. Furthermore, if the heroes andheroines of the two series deal with entirely differentcases though they have similar capacities and appearin similar sets, TVB's series can hardly be called acopy in law. Nevertheless, though what TVB has doneis legally defensible, it does not follow that the series isrespected.
It is absolutely wrong to say Hong Kong peopleare not creative. A few years ago, Infernal Affairs woncritical acclaim and was a huge box-office success. Itsplot of the police and a gang infiltrating into each otherwas extremely well received. Its script caught thefancy of a Hollywood filmmaker, who acquired therights to it and remade it as The Departed, which wona few Oscars. Who says Hong Kong lacks creativepeople?
It is not shameful for creative workers to open theireyes to the whole world and learn from others' works.However, it is of overriding importance to respectcopyrights. The Hollywood filmmaker acquired therights to the script of Infernal Affairs, a Hong Kong film.If Hong Kong TV stations want to learn from foreignseries, they ought to respect their creators' pains. Ifthey do so, they can conceivably command respect.
One would think that, when a TV station is called acopycat, viewers may exercise the right they have asconsumers and vote with their remotes. However,Hong Kong TV broadcasters occupy valuable free TVchannels. Only two free TV programme servicelicences has been issued. Even if businesses apply forsuch licences, their applications will not be granted inthe foreseeable future. Hong Kong TV series lackoriginality and may be full of plagiarisms mainlybecause there is little competition between the free TVprogramme service licensees. To encourage them todo creative work and to develop Hong Kong's creativeindustry, it is necessary for the government to changeits policy on TV broadcasting. Only if it opens up thefree TV channels and brings in competitors to breakthe monopoly up will people break themselves of theirviewing habits. Only then will creative Hong Kong TVseries come to the fore.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
重模仿輕原創創意產業事倍功半
明報社評
2010.05.31
無綫電視劇《談情說案》被指為山寨版日劇《神探伽利略》，引來日本傳媒關注及日本網民批評。要在法律上指證某一作品屬抄襲，十分困難，然而，《談》劇不論男女主角的物理學家及警察身分、場景設計、男主角說話神態等，都似曾相識，貌似《神》劇，難逃被指模仿之嫌。港產電視劇曾經風靡全球華人，近年香港也銳意發展創意產業，但若港產電視劇只懂「參考」外劇，輕視原創，創意工業勢將事倍功半。
日劇《神探伽利略》有一些招牌特色，例如男主角福山雅治飾演的物理學家湯川學，思考案情時以手指掩鼻遮面的招牌動作；又如實驗室黑板上寫滿深奧難明的數學算式。當無綫電視劇《談情說案》播出時，觀眾立即發現兩劇有不少類同之處。
無綫《談》劇的監製劉家豪強調並無抄襲，又說「我們是創作人，肯定不會抄襲！」法律上來說，這也許是對的，若兩劇只是部分主角身分與場景類似，但具體案件內容全部不同，抄襲在法律上的確難以成立。可是，即使法律上過得了關，不代表劇集會獲得尊重。
香港人絕非沒有創意，例如，幾年前電影《無間道》叫好又叫座，警察與黑幫互派臥底的橋段大獲好評，劇本更獲外國片商垂青，正式洽購版權並改編為荷李活電影《無間道風雲》，更榮獲奧斯卡金像獎。誰說香港沒有創作人才？
創作人放眼世界，參考他人的創作並非醜事，但大前提是必須尊重版權。荷李活也可以名正言順地購入港產片《無間道》的版權，香港電視劇若要「參考」外劇，能夠尊重別人的創作心血，相信也會得到別人的尊重。一家電視台被指涉嫌抄襲模仿，觀眾理應可以運用消費者力量，用手中的遙控器投票，但香港電視台佔用的是極珍貴的免費電視頻道，免費電視牌照只得兩個，即使有財團申請加入免費電視行列，成事仍是遙遙無期。沒有創意、懷疑抄襲的電視劇充斥香港，主要原因是免費電視廣播缺乏競爭。如果要在電視台激勵創意，推動本土創意產業，電視廣播政策必須改變──開放免費電視頻道，打破壟斷，打破慣性收視，引入競爭，有創意的電視劇才有出頭的機會。
Glossary
store
If you set great store by something, youconsider it to be important.
hero
the main male character in a story, film etc.
fancy
If a thing catches a person's fancy, it attracts orpleases him.
Housing's player-referee paradox
Government-initiated measures to make property sales more buyer-friendly take effect today. But it remained uncertain last night how far the new regulations would be enforced.
Stewart Leung Chi-kin, vice chairman of the Real Estate Developers Association, reiterated yesterday that members would conform with the government demands.
However, he quickly added the association was still awaiting government replies to clarify some points of concern, and therefore was unable to issue the guidelines on sales practices to its members as expected.
The government admitted it was studying the queries raised, but expressed confidence this wouldn't prevent developers from complying.
This turn of events is puzzling. Could the uncertainty be related to the developers' unhappiness over the demand requiring them to release a price list three days in advance of sales?
In the latest round, the association also asked whether the conditions will also apply to sales of units currently leased as rental apartments.
Equally intriguingly, the MTR Corp withdrew a site on Nam Cheong station from tender a few days ago, after all applications failed to meet requirements.
Expensive land premium at HK$13 billion, or HK$6,500 per square foot, was blamed for the conservative bids.
For the project to be profitable, completed flats would have to be sold for HK$10,000 or more psf. Given the prevalent sentiment, it's a risky investment unless developers could lower the share of profits due to the government.
Is the withdrawal alarming? Not necessarily, since it wasn't the first time this has happened. In 2006, a Tsuen Wan West Station site was pulled back because of high land premium. It was retendered last year and awarded after the land premium was slashed by 25 percent.
Though nobody knows how soon the Nam Cheong site will be available for tender again, the incident does have a silver lining. Housing prices in the secondary market have dropped by 5 to 8 percent before meeting support again. The ripple effect is helping achieve the government's objective of lowering housing prices at a stable pace.
Nevertheless, there is a paradox to be considered. On one hand, it's a government priority to cool down the housing market. Increasing land supply and the introduction of administrative measures to regulate sales practices are part of it. On the other hand, public coffers benefit from land sales.
Therein lies the government's conflicting roles as a market player unwilling to dispose of land cheaply, while acting as the referee in regulating the actions of other players intending to reap profits in the free market economy.
Housing-related policies come under two bureaus. The Development Bureau is responsible for increasing land supply to stimulate housing production, while the Housing Bureau is in charge of cracking the administrative whip against unscrupulous sales practices.
Doesn't the tendency of "reasonable" land auction results or profit sharing go against the priority to precipitate a correction in the property sector? While the dilemma is not unique to Hong Kong - the mainland faces the same thing - this player-referee paradox should be weighed carefully.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Stewart Leung Chi-kin, vice chairman of the Real Estate Developers Association, reiterated yesterday that members would conform with the government demands.
However, he quickly added the association was still awaiting government replies to clarify some points of concern, and therefore was unable to issue the guidelines on sales practices to its members as expected.
The government admitted it was studying the queries raised, but expressed confidence this wouldn't prevent developers from complying.
This turn of events is puzzling. Could the uncertainty be related to the developers' unhappiness over the demand requiring them to release a price list three days in advance of sales?
In the latest round, the association also asked whether the conditions will also apply to sales of units currently leased as rental apartments.
Equally intriguingly, the MTR Corp withdrew a site on Nam Cheong station from tender a few days ago, after all applications failed to meet requirements.
Expensive land premium at HK$13 billion, or HK$6,500 per square foot, was blamed for the conservative bids.
For the project to be profitable, completed flats would have to be sold for HK$10,000 or more psf. Given the prevalent sentiment, it's a risky investment unless developers could lower the share of profits due to the government.
Is the withdrawal alarming? Not necessarily, since it wasn't the first time this has happened. In 2006, a Tsuen Wan West Station site was pulled back because of high land premium. It was retendered last year and awarded after the land premium was slashed by 25 percent.
Though nobody knows how soon the Nam Cheong site will be available for tender again, the incident does have a silver lining. Housing prices in the secondary market have dropped by 5 to 8 percent before meeting support again. The ripple effect is helping achieve the government's objective of lowering housing prices at a stable pace.
Nevertheless, there is a paradox to be considered. On one hand, it's a government priority to cool down the housing market. Increasing land supply and the introduction of administrative measures to regulate sales practices are part of it. On the other hand, public coffers benefit from land sales.
Therein lies the government's conflicting roles as a market player unwilling to dispose of land cheaply, while acting as the referee in regulating the actions of other players intending to reap profits in the free market economy.
Housing-related policies come under two bureaus. The Development Bureau is responsible for increasing land supply to stimulate housing production, while the Housing Bureau is in charge of cracking the administrative whip against unscrupulous sales practices.
Doesn't the tendency of "reasonable" land auction results or profit sharing go against the priority to precipitate a correction in the property sector? While the dilemma is not unique to Hong Kong - the mainland faces the same thing - this player-referee paradox should be weighed carefully.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
2010年5月31日星期一
Octopus and privacy
AN Octopus card contains information on itsholder's rides and purchases. Much sensitiveinformation is stored in a personalisedOctopus card - its holder's name, identity card numberand even credit card number. Octopus cards are likeelectronic identity cards and tracking devices. It is aconcern whether their holders' privacy is protected.Yesterday, Privacy Commissioner Roderick Woo madeit clear that his office would investigate on its owninitiative whether Octopus Card Limited had violatedthe Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance in handling itscustomers' personal data.
As such data have much to do with huge businessinterests, the public have long harboured worry. At anobscure spot in the right lower part of the company'shome page a link called "personal data policy" can befound. There one may access a long document insmall print that is about what the company does withpersonal data. According to this document, thepurposes for which card holders' personal data may beused include "designing new or improving existingservices provided by us, our subsidiaries and ouraffiliates for customers' use" and "marketing of goodsand/or services by us, our subsidiaries, our affiliates orany of our selected business partners". We do notthink many Octopus card holders have perused thatstatement. But what do those expressions mean?Would Octopus Cards Limited sell card holders'
personal data to its "selected business partners"? Inwhat circumstances would it do so? How does itprotect card holders' privacy? The public are full ofdoubts and suspicions.
Octopus Cards Limited is not an ordinary privatecompany. It was jointly set up by the MTR Corp,KCRC, KMB, City-Bus and the Hong Kong andYaumatei Ferry in 1994. It expanded into the retailsector in 2000, when the Hong Kong MonetaryAuthority issued it with a deposit taking companylicence. Now Octopus is very much a symbol of HongKong. Octopus Cards Limited is essentially one ofHong Kong's leading public utility company.
The company, which has a very special status,holds important personal data of Hong Kong people. Itmust tell the public in detail how it protects itscustomers' privacy. It must not keep citizens in thedark or just deal with this matter casually. It does notdo just to issue a statement saying it "strictly complieswith the requirements of the ordinance and protects itscustomers' right to privacy" as it did yesterday.
It is indeed a major technological feat Hong Konghas achieved that Octopus cards have becomepopular. Octopus cards make life much moreconvenient in the SAR. They save people the troubleof keeping or giving change. The technology is indeedwell worth introducing to other places. Nevertheless,technology is a double-edged sword. If Octopus dataare misused, Hong Kong people's privacy will beviolated. It is hoped that Octopus Cards Limited willcooperate with investigators of the Office of the PrivacyCommissioner and tell them on its own initiative how itprotects card holders' privacy. If it does so, Hong Kongpeople's doubts will be dispelled, and they will beparticularly proud when Octopus cards are used in allparts of China and even other parts of the world.
八達通儲存敏感個人資料應主動配合私隱專員調查
八達通不單記錄了持卡人乘坐交通工具及購物的資料，個人八達通帳戶更包括了姓名、身分證號碼甚至信用卡帳戶等敏感個人資料，猶如個人電子身分證及追蹤器，客戶私隱有否獲得保障備受關注。個人資料私隱專員吳斌昨日表明，將主動調查八達通公司處理客戶資料時有否違反《私隱條例》。
由於資料庫涉及龐大的商業利益，早已引起公眾質疑。在八達通公司網頁右下角一個不起眼的位置，可找到一個名為「個人資料聲明」的連結，內附一份數頁長、文字密麻麻的文件，列明八達通公司如何處理個人資料，當中提及「持有人的個人資料可作下列用途」，其中兩項是「設計本公司、其附屬公司及聯屬公司供客戶使用而提供的新服務」，以及「推廣本公司、其附屬公司、聯屬公司或任何選定商務伙伴的貨品及╱或服務」。這份聲明相信絕大部分八達通持有人都沒有詳細閱讀過，但這些字句到底意味什麼？八達通公司會否把持卡人的資料出售予其他「選定商務伙伴」？在什麼情况下會出售？持卡人的私隱又受到什麼保障？公眾仍是滿腹疑團。
八達通並非一家普通私人機構，1994 年由地鐵、九鐵、九巴、城巴和香港小輪共同組成，2000 年更獲金管局簽發「接受存款公司」牌照，正式進軍零售業。如今八達通已經猶如香港的代表。八達通根本就是一家香港重點公共事業。
這家有獨特地位的公司，持有港人重要的個人資料，公司如何保障客戶的個人私隱，必須詳細交代，不能黑箱作業、馬虎了事，更絕非如昨日般發出聲明強調「嚴格奉行法例之要求，保障客戶私隱之權利」，就能交差。
八達通的成功普及，確實是香港的一項重要科技成就，為港人生活帶來極大方便，免卻了輔幣找贖之苦，極有向外推廣的價值；但科技是雙刃刀，若使用不當，將賠上港人私隱被侵的代價。若八達通公司能主動配合私隱專員的調查，主動交代如何保障卡主的私隱，讓公眾釋疑，日後八達通能在全中國甚至其他國家「一卡通行」時，港人定將倍感光榮。
Glossary
on one's own initiative
If you do something on your own initiative, youdo it without anyone telling you to do it.
in the dark
knowing nothing (about something).double-edged sword
something that has both advantages and disadvantages.
As such data have much to do with huge businessinterests, the public have long harboured worry. At anobscure spot in the right lower part of the company'shome page a link called "personal data policy" can befound. There one may access a long document insmall print that is about what the company does withpersonal data. According to this document, thepurposes for which card holders' personal data may beused include "designing new or improving existingservices provided by us, our subsidiaries and ouraffiliates for customers' use" and "marketing of goodsand/or services by us, our subsidiaries, our affiliates orany of our selected business partners". We do notthink many Octopus card holders have perused thatstatement. But what do those expressions mean?Would Octopus Cards Limited sell card holders'
personal data to its "selected business partners"? Inwhat circumstances would it do so? How does itprotect card holders' privacy? The public are full ofdoubts and suspicions.
Octopus Cards Limited is not an ordinary privatecompany. It was jointly set up by the MTR Corp,KCRC, KMB, City-Bus and the Hong Kong andYaumatei Ferry in 1994. It expanded into the retailsector in 2000, when the Hong Kong MonetaryAuthority issued it with a deposit taking companylicence. Now Octopus is very much a symbol of HongKong. Octopus Cards Limited is essentially one ofHong Kong's leading public utility company.
The company, which has a very special status,holds important personal data of Hong Kong people. Itmust tell the public in detail how it protects itscustomers' privacy. It must not keep citizens in thedark or just deal with this matter casually. It does notdo just to issue a statement saying it "strictly complieswith the requirements of the ordinance and protects itscustomers' right to privacy" as it did yesterday.
It is indeed a major technological feat Hong Konghas achieved that Octopus cards have becomepopular. Octopus cards make life much moreconvenient in the SAR. They save people the troubleof keeping or giving change. The technology is indeedwell worth introducing to other places. Nevertheless,technology is a double-edged sword. If Octopus dataare misused, Hong Kong people's privacy will beviolated. It is hoped that Octopus Cards Limited willcooperate with investigators of the Office of the PrivacyCommissioner and tell them on its own initiative how itprotects card holders' privacy. If it does so, Hong Kongpeople's doubts will be dispelled, and they will beparticularly proud when Octopus cards are used in allparts of China and even other parts of the world.
八達通儲存敏感個人資料應主動配合私隱專員調查
八達通不單記錄了持卡人乘坐交通工具及購物的資料，個人八達通帳戶更包括了姓名、身分證號碼甚至信用卡帳戶等敏感個人資料，猶如個人電子身分證及追蹤器，客戶私隱有否獲得保障備受關注。個人資料私隱專員吳斌昨日表明，將主動調查八達通公司處理客戶資料時有否違反《私隱條例》。
由於資料庫涉及龐大的商業利益，早已引起公眾質疑。在八達通公司網頁右下角一個不起眼的位置，可找到一個名為「個人資料聲明」的連結，內附一份數頁長、文字密麻麻的文件，列明八達通公司如何處理個人資料，當中提及「持有人的個人資料可作下列用途」，其中兩項是「設計本公司、其附屬公司及聯屬公司供客戶使用而提供的新服務」，以及「推廣本公司、其附屬公司、聯屬公司或任何選定商務伙伴的貨品及╱或服務」。這份聲明相信絕大部分八達通持有人都沒有詳細閱讀過，但這些字句到底意味什麼？八達通公司會否把持卡人的資料出售予其他「選定商務伙伴」？在什麼情况下會出售？持卡人的私隱又受到什麼保障？公眾仍是滿腹疑團。
八達通並非一家普通私人機構，1994 年由地鐵、九鐵、九巴、城巴和香港小輪共同組成，2000 年更獲金管局簽發「接受存款公司」牌照，正式進軍零售業。如今八達通已經猶如香港的代表。八達通根本就是一家香港重點公共事業。
這家有獨特地位的公司，持有港人重要的個人資料，公司如何保障客戶的個人私隱，必須詳細交代，不能黑箱作業、馬虎了事，更絕非如昨日般發出聲明強調「嚴格奉行法例之要求，保障客戶私隱之權利」，就能交差。
八達通的成功普及，確實是香港的一項重要科技成就，為港人生活帶來極大方便，免卻了輔幣找贖之苦，極有向外推廣的價值；但科技是雙刃刀，若使用不當，將賠上港人私隱被侵的代價。若八達通公司能主動配合私隱專員的調查，主動交代如何保障卡主的私隱，讓公眾釋疑，日後八達通能在全中國甚至其他國家「一卡通行」時，港人定將倍感光榮。
Glossary
on one's own initiative
If you do something on your own initiative, youdo it without anyone telling you to do it.
in the dark
knowing nothing (about something).double-edged sword
something that has both advantages and disadvantages.
China role threatened as world factory
Young workers at Foxconn's Shenzhen factory committing suicide one after another couldn't be more disturbing.
Taiwanese tycoon Terry Gou Tai- ming moved swiftly on the weekend to boost wages by 20 percent to ease tension after 10 deaths so far this year.
Although Foxconn denied the pay rise had any connection whatsoever to the suicide scandal, its timing couldn't be more coincidental.
In Foshan, more than 1,800 Honda workers at its parts factory have been on strike for two weeks, forcing the Japanese carmaker to shut down its assembly lines across the mainland.
Honda has offered pay rises, but obviously not enough to get the striking employees back to work.
Both incidents have helped to raise the question whether China's role as the world's factory is soon ending.
Nobody can possibly standardize the cause of all the suicide jumps and wrist slashing at Foxconn. But the general views link them to the military-style workplace discipline designed to suppress costs for maximum profit.
For years, this has been Gou's formula in elevating Foxconn to become the king of contractors, winning orders from leading brands such as Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nokia, and Hewlett- Packard.
Honda's case is more straightforward, though not necessarily simpler. So far, the carmaker has put off reaching a settlement with the striking workers by recruiting and training interns to replace those more experienced regulars.
The different approaches by Foxconn and Honda have helped each control costs in a highly competitive commercial world. But neither plant fits the common definition of "sweat-shop" usually associated with extremely low salaries and unsafe working conditions. There are scores of other mainland workplaces that better fit the description. But the fact is China's labor market is changing. In the past, migrant workers who flocked to the cities from the poorer hinterland were driven by the burning desire to earn and save as much money as possible, so they could someday triumphantly return home to build big houses or raise livestock. Clearly, this is no longer the case. Migrant workers now mostly belong to the 1980s or '90s generations, better educated and having experienced less hardship than their parents. They travel to cities, dreaming of prosperity, and are less willing to return to poor home villages.
Their earnings may be good for the standard of living in the hinterland, but hardly enough for life outside factory dormitories in Shenzhen or Foshan.
The mainland labor market resembles what Hong Kong's was like in the 1950s and '60s. It took many years for the SAR to become what it is today.
There's little doubt a similar transformation is occurring in China, with the government introducing policies to increase minimum pay scales almost yearly since 2006, in support of Beijing's building of a harmonious society, and desire to stimulate the economy by boosting domestic consumption.
Of those provinces and cities raising the minimum pay this year, the rate is 10 percent or more.
But economic transformation is a natural process that won't be completed in a fortnight. So China will continue to remain an important manufacturing base of the world for the foreseeable future.*Overset by 720.*
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Taiwanese tycoon Terry Gou Tai- ming moved swiftly on the weekend to boost wages by 20 percent to ease tension after 10 deaths so far this year.
Although Foxconn denied the pay rise had any connection whatsoever to the suicide scandal, its timing couldn't be more coincidental.
In Foshan, more than 1,800 Honda workers at its parts factory have been on strike for two weeks, forcing the Japanese carmaker to shut down its assembly lines across the mainland.
Honda has offered pay rises, but obviously not enough to get the striking employees back to work.
Both incidents have helped to raise the question whether China's role as the world's factory is soon ending.
Nobody can possibly standardize the cause of all the suicide jumps and wrist slashing at Foxconn. But the general views link them to the military-style workplace discipline designed to suppress costs for maximum profit.
For years, this has been Gou's formula in elevating Foxconn to become the king of contractors, winning orders from leading brands such as Apple, Microsoft, Sony, Nokia, and Hewlett- Packard.
Honda's case is more straightforward, though not necessarily simpler. So far, the carmaker has put off reaching a settlement with the striking workers by recruiting and training interns to replace those more experienced regulars.
The different approaches by Foxconn and Honda have helped each control costs in a highly competitive commercial world. But neither plant fits the common definition of "sweat-shop" usually associated with extremely low salaries and unsafe working conditions. There are scores of other mainland workplaces that better fit the description. But the fact is China's labor market is changing. In the past, migrant workers who flocked to the cities from the poorer hinterland were driven by the burning desire to earn and save as much money as possible, so they could someday triumphantly return home to build big houses or raise livestock. Clearly, this is no longer the case. Migrant workers now mostly belong to the 1980s or '90s generations, better educated and having experienced less hardship than their parents. They travel to cities, dreaming of prosperity, and are less willing to return to poor home villages.
Their earnings may be good for the standard of living in the hinterland, but hardly enough for life outside factory dormitories in Shenzhen or Foshan.
The mainland labor market resembles what Hong Kong's was like in the 1950s and '60s. It took many years for the SAR to become what it is today.
There's little doubt a similar transformation is occurring in China, with the government introducing policies to increase minimum pay scales almost yearly since 2006, in support of Beijing's building of a harmonious society, and desire to stimulate the economy by boosting domestic consumption.
Of those provinces and cities raising the minimum pay this year, the rate is 10 percent or more.
But economic transformation is a natural process that won't be completed in a fortnight. So China will continue to remain an important manufacturing base of the world for the foreseeable future.*Overset by 720.*
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
2010年5月30日星期日
2010年5月28日星期五
Central government should offer concessions
L I Gang, a deputy director of the Liaison Officeof the Central People's Government in theHong Kong SAR, has met members of theDemocratic Party and then those of the Alliance forUniversal Suffrage. The democrats have proposedthat, in 2012, the additional functional constituency(FC) Legislative Council (Legco) members be returnedby all voters. Yesterday, Li Gang called that at oddswith the intent of the Basic Law, apparently bent onsentencing it to death.
According to Li Gang, as the National People'sCongress Standing Committee's decision says that, in2012, there will be as many directly elected seats asFC seats in Legco and FC voters belong to specificprofessions or groups, it is at odds with the intent ofthe Basic Law, would arouse suspicions of a breach ofthe decision and would not help bring about consensusto allow all voters to return FC legislators.
In our view, Hong Kong's constitutionalarrangements are political in nature and, in this area,legal points are of secondary importance. Judging fromhow things have developed, legal points have becomewhat the central government uses to slow down HongKong's democratisation. Li Gang's comments on theproposal in the light of what he perceives to be a pointof law are clearly inadequate. He turns a blind eye tothe political reality, and his arguments are less thanpersuasive.
Li Gang has been authorised by the centralgovernment to meet pan pan--democrats. Conceivably, histask is to find out what reforms they want the SARgovernment to carry out and give the centralgovernment a report so that it can come to a finaldecision. There is reason to believe what he hasopenly said about how the additional FC Legco seatsshould be filled is based on his usual understandings.
We do not think they represent what the centralgovernment has recently determined. We hope thecentral government will look at pan pan--democrats'proposals from a wider perspective instead of usinglegal niceties as a protective talisman talisman..Hong Kong democrats did not really concernthemselves with the 2012 electoral arrangements.
They aimed at persuading the central government toreassure Hong Kong people by saying definitely thatthey would exercise genuine universal suffrage in 2017and 2020. If it did so, they would support the SARgovernment's 2012 package despite its undemocraticfeatures. However, when they and central governmentofficials sounded one another out out, they came to, realise the central government was very unlikely to doso. Thereupon they decided to settle for second best -to make the 2012 package as democratic as possible.It is generally agreed that, unless democrats'
meetings with central government officials producepositive results, Hong Kong's political ecology willwholly tend to radicalise. Then, internal strife wouldintensify, Chief Executive Donald Tsang and hisadministration would have even greater difficultyrunning the SAR, and Hong Kong would be like a manwho, sitting on a powder keg, wonders when he will beblown to pieces.
Deputy director Li Gang has called on democratsto make political compromises. He has said, "About theconstitutional system, none can win alone; one mustallow all to win. If any party wants to win alone, all mayend up losing." From what Li Gang has said after hismeetings with members of the Democratic Party andthose of the Alliance for Universal Suffrage, citizensare quite clear who wants to win alone. Yesterday hecalled on democrats to make concessions, saying,"Take a step back and a boundless world appearsbefore you." He urged them to support the 2012package so that Hong Kong's constitutional system willprogress instead of remaining unchanged. In our view,the central government should also give some thoughtto the saying that "a boundless world will appearbefore one if one takes a step back" and try to do whatwould allow all to win. If both the democrats and thecentral government take a step back, there will be twosteps between them, and it will be much likelier forgive and take to yield positive results. Then, HongKong's political situation would suddenly clear up, andthe central authorities would no longer have to racktheir brains to deal with this issue.
All will be well if the central government saysdefinitely Hong Kong people will exercise genuineuniversal suffrage in the 2017 and 2020 elections. Thisis Hong Kong people's very humble request, and theydeserve to have genuine universal suffrage. Is it reallyso hard for the central government to grant thisrequest? Are Hong Kong people to suppose theuniversal suffrage promised them will be bogus? Thecentral government ought to answer these questions.
退一步海闊天空民主派和中央都適用
明報社評
2010.05.27
中聯辦副主任李剛先後與民主黨和普選聯會晤，對於他們所提出訴求，其中關於2012 新增功能組別交由全體選民投票，李剛昨日公開回應時，直指為不符合《基本法》原意，大有把這個訴求判處「死刑」之意。
李剛昨日回應說，人大常委會《決定》規定2012 年直選及功能組別增加的議席相等，功能組別選民是特定行業或組別人士，如交由全部選民投票產生，就不符合基本法的立法原意，並引起社會人質疑是否違反了《決定》，不利於社會形成共識。
我們認為， 香港政制安排的本質是政治問題，法律問題只屬其次，而從發展歷程看來，法律更淪為手段，中央借此阻礙香港民主化進程而已。所以，李剛只從他演繹的法理討論這個問題，顯然不足，罔顧政治實質，理據未能使人信服。
李剛獲中央授權與民主派會晤，相信他的任務是收集民主派對政改的訴求，然後向中央匯報，由中央拍板定奪。他就新增功能組別議席的選舉方式的陳述，有理由相信是按一貫理解所作的公開解釋，而非中央最高層的最新決定。我們希望， 中央日後應該從更廣闊角度審視民主派所提出的訴求，而非狹義地以法律為護身符。民主派志不在2012 年的選舉安排，他們着眼於爭取中央確認2017 和2020 年兩個選舉是真普選，以增加市民的信心，若得到中央的確認，則2012 年選舉安排之不民主實質，他們也不會計較而投票支持。但是與中央官員互相摸底過程中，民主派知道要中央確認2017 和2020 年真普選的可能性不大，於是退而求其次，爭取2012 年方案有最大的民主程度。
現在，社會上有這樣的共識，就是民主派這次與中央溝通，若未能取得積極成果，香港整體政治生態將無可避免趨向激化，屆時內耗加劇，特首曾蔭權和政府的管治倍添困難，香港就像坐在火藥桶一樣，不知道什麼時候被炸得粉身碎骨。
李剛副主任曾經勸籲民主派作出政治妥協，表示「在政制問題上，不可獨贏，只能共贏，如果只想獨贏，結果可能共輸」，按李剛與民主黨和普選聯會晤後所透露的信息，究竟是誰想獨贏呢？相信市民心中有數。昨日李剛呼籲民主派「退一步，海闊天空」，支持2012 年政改方案，使香港政制向前發展，不再原地踏步。我們認為，中央也應該想一想「退一步，海闊天空」這句話，創造共贏環境，若民主派和中央都各退一步，屆時就有兩步的迴旋空間，再經互讓互諒，達至積極成果機會大增，香港政局頓時天朗氣清，中央再也不用為這個問題傷腦筋了。
中央只要確認2017 和2020 年兩個選舉是真普選，事情就全部解決了，這是港人十分卑微的要求，而真普選也是港人應得的。確認真的那麼困難？普選難道真是假的？這是中央要回答的問題。
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
According to Li Gang, as the National People'sCongress Standing Committee's decision says that, in2012, there will be as many directly elected seats asFC seats in Legco and FC voters belong to specificprofessions or groups, it is at odds with the intent ofthe Basic Law, would arouse suspicions of a breach ofthe decision and would not help bring about consensusto allow all voters to return FC legislators.
In our view, Hong Kong's constitutionalarrangements are political in nature and, in this area,legal points are of secondary importance. Judging fromhow things have developed, legal points have becomewhat the central government uses to slow down HongKong's democratisation. Li Gang's comments on theproposal in the light of what he perceives to be a pointof law are clearly inadequate. He turns a blind eye tothe political reality, and his arguments are less thanpersuasive.
Li Gang has been authorised by the centralgovernment to meet pan pan--democrats. Conceivably, histask is to find out what reforms they want the SARgovernment to carry out and give the centralgovernment a report so that it can come to a finaldecision. There is reason to believe what he hasopenly said about how the additional FC Legco seatsshould be filled is based on his usual understandings.
We do not think they represent what the centralgovernment has recently determined. We hope thecentral government will look at pan pan--democrats'proposals from a wider perspective instead of usinglegal niceties as a protective talisman talisman..Hong Kong democrats did not really concernthemselves with the 2012 electoral arrangements.
They aimed at persuading the central government toreassure Hong Kong people by saying definitely thatthey would exercise genuine universal suffrage in 2017and 2020. If it did so, they would support the SARgovernment's 2012 package despite its undemocraticfeatures. However, when they and central governmentofficials sounded one another out out, they came to, realise the central government was very unlikely to doso. Thereupon they decided to settle for second best -to make the 2012 package as democratic as possible.It is generally agreed that, unless democrats'
meetings with central government officials producepositive results, Hong Kong's political ecology willwholly tend to radicalise. Then, internal strife wouldintensify, Chief Executive Donald Tsang and hisadministration would have even greater difficultyrunning the SAR, and Hong Kong would be like a manwho, sitting on a powder keg, wonders when he will beblown to pieces.
Deputy director Li Gang has called on democratsto make political compromises. He has said, "About theconstitutional system, none can win alone; one mustallow all to win. If any party wants to win alone, all mayend up losing." From what Li Gang has said after hismeetings with members of the Democratic Party andthose of the Alliance for Universal Suffrage, citizensare quite clear who wants to win alone. Yesterday hecalled on democrats to make concessions, saying,"Take a step back and a boundless world appearsbefore you." He urged them to support the 2012package so that Hong Kong's constitutional system willprogress instead of remaining unchanged. In our view,the central government should also give some thoughtto the saying that "a boundless world will appearbefore one if one takes a step back" and try to do whatwould allow all to win. If both the democrats and thecentral government take a step back, there will be twosteps between them, and it will be much likelier forgive and take to yield positive results. Then, HongKong's political situation would suddenly clear up, andthe central authorities would no longer have to racktheir brains to deal with this issue.
All will be well if the central government saysdefinitely Hong Kong people will exercise genuineuniversal suffrage in the 2017 and 2020 elections. Thisis Hong Kong people's very humble request, and theydeserve to have genuine universal suffrage. Is it reallyso hard for the central government to grant thisrequest? Are Hong Kong people to suppose theuniversal suffrage promised them will be bogus? Thecentral government ought to answer these questions.
退一步海闊天空民主派和中央都適用
明報社評
2010.05.27
中聯辦副主任李剛先後與民主黨和普選聯會晤，對於他們所提出訴求，其中關於2012 新增功能組別交由全體選民投票，李剛昨日公開回應時，直指為不符合《基本法》原意，大有把這個訴求判處「死刑」之意。
李剛昨日回應說，人大常委會《決定》規定2012 年直選及功能組別增加的議席相等，功能組別選民是特定行業或組別人士，如交由全部選民投票產生，就不符合基本法的立法原意，並引起社會人質疑是否違反了《決定》，不利於社會形成共識。
我們認為， 香港政制安排的本質是政治問題，法律問題只屬其次，而從發展歷程看來，法律更淪為手段，中央借此阻礙香港民主化進程而已。所以，李剛只從他演繹的法理討論這個問題，顯然不足，罔顧政治實質，理據未能使人信服。
李剛獲中央授權與民主派會晤，相信他的任務是收集民主派對政改的訴求，然後向中央匯報，由中央拍板定奪。他就新增功能組別議席的選舉方式的陳述，有理由相信是按一貫理解所作的公開解釋，而非中央最高層的最新決定。我們希望， 中央日後應該從更廣闊角度審視民主派所提出的訴求，而非狹義地以法律為護身符。民主派志不在2012 年的選舉安排，他們着眼於爭取中央確認2017 和2020 年兩個選舉是真普選，以增加市民的信心，若得到中央的確認，則2012 年選舉安排之不民主實質，他們也不會計較而投票支持。但是與中央官員互相摸底過程中，民主派知道要中央確認2017 和2020 年真普選的可能性不大，於是退而求其次，爭取2012 年方案有最大的民主程度。
現在，社會上有這樣的共識，就是民主派這次與中央溝通，若未能取得積極成果，香港整體政治生態將無可避免趨向激化，屆時內耗加劇，特首曾蔭權和政府的管治倍添困難，香港就像坐在火藥桶一樣，不知道什麼時候被炸得粉身碎骨。
李剛副主任曾經勸籲民主派作出政治妥協，表示「在政制問題上，不可獨贏，只能共贏，如果只想獨贏，結果可能共輸」，按李剛與民主黨和普選聯會晤後所透露的信息，究竟是誰想獨贏呢？相信市民心中有數。昨日李剛呼籲民主派「退一步，海闊天空」，支持2012 年政改方案，使香港政制向前發展，不再原地踏步。我們認為，中央也應該想一想「退一步，海闊天空」這句話，創造共贏環境，若民主派和中央都各退一步，屆時就有兩步的迴旋空間，再經互讓互諒，達至積極成果機會大增，香港政局頓時天朗氣清，中央再也不用為這個問題傷腦筋了。
中央只要確認2017 和2020 年兩個選舉是真普選，事情就全部解決了，這是港人十分卑微的要求，而真普選也是港人應得的。確認真的那麼困難？普選難道真是假的？這是中央要回答的問題。
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
2010年5月27日星期四
上班族改善英語 由句子學起 港人不懂問候語 易擺烏龍
港人3歲開始學英語，但面對外國人時往往「口窒窒」，甚至有口難言。港台節目《反斗英語》之「錯不在我」環節主持、中大英文系碩士課程主任梁頌康（Danny）指出，港人學英語經常擺烏龍，最大毛病是只學單字，以致未能有效組織句子；有外國人說 What's up，但有中國人卻一頭霧水，回應 It's sky，鬧出大笑話。
在中大教授英文碩士數年，Danny發現港人學習英語的最大問題源於「教科書英語」，只着重學習文法及單字，以致用英語溝通時會「口啞啞」，或以字面理解意思。
「教科書英語」鬧笑話
「一位愛爾蘭教授曾跟我說，有次碰到中國朋友時說了句 What's up？怎料對方回應 It's sky。若他了解外國文化，便知道What's up只是一句問候語！」
他舉例，當上司問 It's sunny day, isn't it？上班族往往以為對方正在問天氣，「其實是英國人的問候語，就如港人問『你食咗飯未』一樣。」只需回答Yes, it is！不用查詢天氣報告。
上班族要從「教科書英語」更上一層樓，Danny認為不可只學習英語生字，更要認識生字上的「兄弟姊妹」，即該生字的前後配搭或慣用語（collocation），如 interested一字是跟 in。
運用成語倍感親切
另一方面要留意的是成語（idioms），如 burn the midnight oil，意指工作非常辛苦；若工作重重複複，可以說 It's like watching the paint dry。在溝通時多運用成語，外籍同事頓覺「同聲同氣」。
港人學英語另一問題，是英美口音夾雜，或英美用字縱橫交錯，他認為雖然大多數英美人士知道兩者分別，但某些字詞發音相似，可能令對方誤會。
80後的 Danny土生土長，從沒到過外地留學，卻說得一口流利英語。他透露自己曾下過苦工，在眾多方法中他推薦看電影。為學習英式口音，Danny選看英國電影，邊看字幕邊模仿演員對話，他表示方法非常奏效，除有助發音，亦可學會地道英語。
﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏
阿 Sir上陣 建議先讀聲學
盡管商業文件或電郵的文法多標準，但若發音不正確，印象分同樣大打折扣，如receipt（收據），不少人會讀出「P」音，原來字母p在字母t之前，通常都不發音。
要了解正確讀音，Danny建議上班族先修讀聲學（phonics），以簡單方法學會拼音，進階才學國際音標（IPA）。
本周六播出的《反斗英語》之「錯不在我」環節，Danny將示範多種英文生字的正確發音。自 Danny參與《反斗英語》製作及演出後，不少學生紛紛讚好。
原來雙方合作是個機緣巧合，港台電視部監製謝瑞芳稱，邀請Danny參與節目，對方一口答應，除了擔任英語顧問，更作幕前演出，跟藝人李綺紅以生動方式教授英語。
下集《反斗英語》故事將圍繞藥房及醫生診症的英文常用語，節目於5月29日晚上7時30分在無綫翡翠台播出。
在中大教授英文碩士數年，Danny發現港人學習英語的最大問題源於「教科書英語」，只着重學習文法及單字，以致用英語溝通時會「口啞啞」，或以字面理解意思。
「教科書英語」鬧笑話
「一位愛爾蘭教授曾跟我說，有次碰到中國朋友時說了句 What's up？怎料對方回應 It's sky。若他了解外國文化，便知道What's up只是一句問候語！」
他舉例，當上司問 It's sunny day, isn't it？上班族往往以為對方正在問天氣，「其實是英國人的問候語，就如港人問『你食咗飯未』一樣。」只需回答Yes, it is！不用查詢天氣報告。
上班族要從「教科書英語」更上一層樓，Danny認為不可只學習英語生字，更要認識生字上的「兄弟姊妹」，即該生字的前後配搭或慣用語（collocation），如 interested一字是跟 in。
運用成語倍感親切
另一方面要留意的是成語（idioms），如 burn the midnight oil，意指工作非常辛苦；若工作重重複複，可以說 It's like watching the paint dry。在溝通時多運用成語，外籍同事頓覺「同聲同氣」。
港人學英語另一問題，是英美口音夾雜，或英美用字縱橫交錯，他認為雖然大多數英美人士知道兩者分別，但某些字詞發音相似，可能令對方誤會。
80後的 Danny土生土長，從沒到過外地留學，卻說得一口流利英語。他透露自己曾下過苦工，在眾多方法中他推薦看電影。為學習英式口音，Danny選看英國電影，邊看字幕邊模仿演員對話，他表示方法非常奏效，除有助發音，亦可學會地道英語。
﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏﹏
阿 Sir上陣 建議先讀聲學
盡管商業文件或電郵的文法多標準，但若發音不正確，印象分同樣大打折扣，如receipt（收據），不少人會讀出「P」音，原來字母p在字母t之前，通常都不發音。
要了解正確讀音，Danny建議上班族先修讀聲學（phonics），以簡單方法學會拼音，進階才學國際音標（IPA）。
本周六播出的《反斗英語》之「錯不在我」環節，Danny將示範多種英文生字的正確發音。自 Danny參與《反斗英語》製作及演出後，不少學生紛紛讚好。
原來雙方合作是個機緣巧合，港台電視部監製謝瑞芳稱，邀請Danny參與節目，對方一口答應，除了擔任英語顧問，更作幕前演出，跟藝人李綺紅以生動方式教授英語。
下集《反斗英語》故事將圍繞藥房及醫生診症的英文常用語，節目於5月29日晚上7時30分在無綫翡翠台播出。
Death teaches a hard lesson
The leap that took the life of a youngster at Tung Chung Catholic School is shocking. At the same time, it is also a case for grave concern.
Not only is it a matter of how a 17-year-old student ended his life, it also raises questions about how schools cope with students suffering from psychological disorders.
Wong Ling-fung was psychotic, but psychologists contacted by The Standard said people with psychosis can be intelligent and resume a normal life if given proper medical care, along with support from family and friends.
Anyone who has read the messages Wong left on his blog might not necessarily agree with him. However, they do provide clues on understanding the inner world of this troubled young man.
The Coroner's Court should be convened to review the case, even though there appears to be little doubt about the cause of death - suicide. But there are circumstances warranting greater attention from us. Perhaps there is something society can learn.
Understandably, the parents are grieving over their son's death, with the father accusing the school of three things in particular. First, he questioned why the school asked his son to take his medication before class despite parental objections. He said Ling-fung had taken his medicine before bedtime the night before - as prescribed by doctors.
Second, he questioned why the school had demanded his son to make a public apology for misbehaving on Respect Teachers Day, knowing he had a psychological condition. Then, he queried why the son was warned of isolation if he did not apologize.
This is the father's understanding of the tragic incident. What's the school's version of the case? So far, it has stayed invisible from the media, even posting a notice at its main entrance yesterday rejecting any media interviews.
Perhaps the closest that one can get is what has been said by unidentified sources quoted by a local paper.
On the first point of the medication accusation, the sources wouldn't comment, citing privacy concerns. On the second point, the sources clarified the school had not asked the student to apologize in public.
On the isolation claim, the sources said arrangements had been made for Wong to return to school for self-study, and was allowed to attend normal classes a few days before his fatal leap.
It would be imprudent to rush to attach blame to anybody. But there is a case of public interest at stake. How well is our education model equipped in dealing with similar problems?
On his blog, Wong said he knew others viewed him as strange since he was very young. How did he cope? He kept his inside world bottled up, and chose to observe how others reacted to him. He also recalled how he had to pretend to behave during the two months' confinement in a mental hospital.
It is right to deal with the psychological impact of Wong's suicide on his schoolmates and teachers. But it would also be necessary for the Education Bureau to take the lead to look into the case thoroughly to find out if there is a lesson to be learned.
There are many types of people, and sometimes, even gifted children act strangely.
Not only is it a matter of how a 17-year-old student ended his life, it also raises questions about how schools cope with students suffering from psychological disorders.
Wong Ling-fung was psychotic, but psychologists contacted by The Standard said people with psychosis can be intelligent and resume a normal life if given proper medical care, along with support from family and friends.
Anyone who has read the messages Wong left on his blog might not necessarily agree with him. However, they do provide clues on understanding the inner world of this troubled young man.
The Coroner's Court should be convened to review the case, even though there appears to be little doubt about the cause of death - suicide. But there are circumstances warranting greater attention from us. Perhaps there is something society can learn.
Understandably, the parents are grieving over their son's death, with the father accusing the school of three things in particular. First, he questioned why the school asked his son to take his medication before class despite parental objections. He said Ling-fung had taken his medicine before bedtime the night before - as prescribed by doctors.
Second, he questioned why the school had demanded his son to make a public apology for misbehaving on Respect Teachers Day, knowing he had a psychological condition. Then, he queried why the son was warned of isolation if he did not apologize.
This is the father's understanding of the tragic incident. What's the school's version of the case? So far, it has stayed invisible from the media, even posting a notice at its main entrance yesterday rejecting any media interviews.
Perhaps the closest that one can get is what has been said by unidentified sources quoted by a local paper.
On the first point of the medication accusation, the sources wouldn't comment, citing privacy concerns. On the second point, the sources clarified the school had not asked the student to apologize in public.
On the isolation claim, the sources said arrangements had been made for Wong to return to school for self-study, and was allowed to attend normal classes a few days before his fatal leap.
It would be imprudent to rush to attach blame to anybody. But there is a case of public interest at stake. How well is our education model equipped in dealing with similar problems?
On his blog, Wong said he knew others viewed him as strange since he was very young. How did he cope? He kept his inside world bottled up, and chose to observe how others reacted to him. He also recalled how he had to pretend to behave during the two months' confinement in a mental hospital.
It is right to deal with the psychological impact of Wong's suicide on his schoolmates and teachers. But it would also be necessary for the Education Bureau to take the lead to look into the case thoroughly to find out if there is a lesson to be learned.
There are many types of people, and sometimes, even gifted children act strangely.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
