At long last, the Democratic Party formally met with central government officials.
The meeting at the Central Liaison Office in Hong Kong is a symbolic breakthrough both the Democrats and Beijing have been trying to achieve on the question of political development. But the way forward is still clouded with uncertainties.
Pessimism still reigns because the progress doesn't necessarily mean the Democrats will vote for the 2012 electoral package. Much more needs to be done before that could happen.
It's clear Beijing has given higher priority to winning over the Democrats rather than wooing others. Instead of holding the first formal meeting with the Alliance for Universal Suffrage, Central Liaison Office deputy director Li Gang opted for the Democrats. Why?
First, both the Democratic Party and alliance are nearly identical in their quests. But the Democrats are the most organized political bloc in the group. Instead of appealing to moderates in general, it makes sense to cultivate special ties with the core bloc.
Beijing has shown sincerity in working toward the 2012 package's passage, and it's plausible the central government has a more grandiose plan in mind.
As I've said, Hong Kong has been hampered by political bickering all these years. Had it not been for the endless arguments cursing the SAR, Hong Kong could have been steps ahead from where it is now. It's fine and dandy if authorities can win over three or four more opposition votes to back the package, but this alone can't alleviate the fundamental concern of brinkmanship. To solve the problem conclusively, it will be strategic to improve ties with the biggest opposition party. If the package is rejected, society may also become more radical.
While I believe even the Democrats hope the electoral proposal will pass, it's hard to say if things will go according to plan. How will Beijing respond to the Democrats' list of demands?
While it's anybody's guess, Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen uttered the hard truth yesterday when he admitted at a public function that nobody can be optimistic at this stage.
There are bound to be partisan interests to overcome in the search for the community's interest. The key in breaking the deadlock lies in the will of the concerned parties - pro- establishment and opposition included - to place the SAR's interests ahead of their own party interests. In countries of mature political culture, the national interest is always paramount.
Frankly, I'm baffled by Tsang's challenge to Civic Party lawmaker Audrey Eu Yuet-mee to debate him on television. He may be right in arguing a TV debate will help the public better understand the issue. But don't the opinion polls indicate the majority of people already support the 2012 package?
I wonder what additional benefits can be gained from a high-profile debate. Perhaps Democratic Party vanguard Szeto Wah put it best when he suggested it was aimed at cracking the opposition. If that's the case, it shouldn't be done by the government.
Let's not lose sight of the goal. What really matters is the moderates' dialogue with Beijing - not the debate.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
2010年5月25日星期二
通通識 Editorial
A German volunteer who has long taught "leftbehind children" (whose parents work in citiesand who live alone or are looked after by theirrelatives in their villages) used to keep a blog and writeabout his thoughts. Last year CCTV interviewed him.
Some days ago he suddenly shut his blog down. Thevolunteer reportedly said he could not endure "theconsequences, responsibility and stress". Many thinkhe has been warned because he has revealed that"left behind children" are not adequately looked afterand, for that reason, he cannot but keep a low profile.
Eckart Loewe, the volunteer, who was born in1968 in Germany, once pursued his studies in China.
For more than ten years he has taught in a poor villagein China and looked after "left behind children" there.
According to an All All--China Women's Federationsurvey whose findings were published in May last year,there are more than 300 millions minors in China.
There are about 58 million left behind children in ruralareas, of whom more than 40 million are under 14. Thesurvey shows left behind children aredelinquency delinquency--prone. It can be imagined that suchchildren, deprived of parental discipline, may do poorlyin school and are liable to go astray.
Loewe has indeed described poverty in ruralChina. He has directly helped impoverished families. Ifmore people are aware of what he has seen, more willlend children in rural areas a helping hand. Chinesepeople ought to have offered the foreigner from afartheir sincere thanks. However, Loewe's blog has beenshut down. It can thus be imagined that officials incharge of such matters do not think so. They may thinkLoewe has unveiled an inglorious aspect of China.
They may fear people may ask why the governmenthas taken no measures to help the several ten million"left behind children and whether planning officialshave made mistakes.
The Chinese authorities are hostile towardsoutsiders and non non--mainland non non--governmentalorganisations (NGOs) that help Chinese people. LastFebruary, an urgent circular was sent purportedly fromthe leading Party group of the Ministry of Education totertiary institutes. It said that Oxfam Hong Kong ran itsuniversity student volunteer programme on themainland with bad motives and that its top managerswere leading figures of the opposition. Tertiaryinstitutes were told not to have anything to do with theNGO. Oxfam Hong Kong immediately suspended theprogramme.
Though the NGO's case is not entirely similar toLoewe's, they point to the mainland authorities' ideaabout voluntary work - that foreigners and foreignNGOs are welcome to do anti anti--poverty work in China,but they must confine themselves to poverty alleviationand they have no business to concern themselves withwhether China's policies are unfair. Anti-povertyworkers help those in the lowest social stratum.
Nevertheless, those people are poor most probablybecause the government's welfare policy is misguided,resources are unfairly distributed, citizens' rights arenot protected or local officials are corrupt and prone toabuse their powers. For example, left behind childrenhave problems because the authorities have pursuedtheir policy of encourage people to work elsewherewithout providing them with adequate support. Theblame rests on the authorities.
Provincial and municipal governments should notbe paranoiac. They should earnestly make an effort toimprove the people's wellbeing instead of trying torepress welldoers or to prevent foreign groups frominfiltrating into China under the guise of NGOs orforeigners from exposing the dark side of rural areas.
明報英語網「雙語社評」
english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
千萬「留守兒童」欠缺照顧 內地不應逼義工噤聲
一名德國籍義工長期在廣西貧困農村學校教育「留守兒童」（父母皆到城市打工，被留在農村獨自生活或交親友照顧的兒童），把箇中體會寫上網誌，去年更獲中央電視台專訪；但近日網誌突然關閉，更寫上該義工自稱承擔不了「後果、責任和壓力」的字句，外界估計他因揭露內地對留守兒童照顧不足而被警告，被迫「低調」行事。
該名德國籍義工盧安克（ Eckart Loewe Loewe）， ），1968 年生於德國，曾於中國留學， ，10 10 多年來一直在中國貧困農村當教師，並照顧當地的留守兒童。
根據全國婦聯去年55 月公布的調查，中國有33 億多未成年人士，約有5800 萬是農村留守兒童，其中4000 多萬是14 歲以下的小孩，即是說，上千萬個家庭都面對留守兒童的問題。調查更指出，部分留守兒童已成為青少年違法犯罪的高危人群。可以想像，這批兒童沒有父母管教，書讀得不好，也可能會學壞。
盧確實是點出了中國農村困苦的一面，並身體力行地服務貧困家庭。他的所見所聞讓外界知悉，只會讓更多有心扶助農村兒童的人伸出援手，中國人應向這位遠道而來的「老外」誠心道謝才是。但從盧的網誌被關閉就可以想像，主事官員並不是這麼想。他們也許認為，盧揭露了中國社會不光彩的一面，更甚的是，外界同時會質疑，為什麼政府沒有相應的政策協助這批數以千萬計的「留守兒童」，負責規劃的官員是否有過失等等。
中國政府對外地前來施以援手的人士及非政府組織（NGO NGO）抱有敵意。今年）22 月，內地突然流傳一封署名「中共教育部黨組」向全國高校發放的緊急通知，指香港樂施會在內地舉辦的大學生志願者計劃「用心不善」，又指樂施會負責人是「反對派骨幹」，要求學校斷絕來往，香港樂施會旋即暫停相關計劃。
樂施會事件雖然與德籍義工盧安克的情况不盡相同，卻反映了內地政府的同一個思維，就是雖然歡迎外地義工或NGO 到中國扶貧，但只限於扶貧本身，政府政策是否不公平是絕對不能碰的。但弔詭的是，扶貧工作對象是社會的最低層，他們貧窮的原因往往涉及福利政策欠周詳、資源分配不公、個人權益不受保障，甚至是地方權貴貪污濫權等。就以留守兒童為例，明顯就是中國鼓勵農民出外打工政策的配套不周而造成，政府負有不可推卸的責任。
各地省市政府與其天天疑心生暗鬼，把精力用於防範外國勢力假借NGO 之名入侵中國，防範老外義工把農村的陰暗面曝露於人前，忙於打壓好人，不如切切實實把精力用於改善人民的福祉吧。
明報社評 2010.05.24
Some days ago he suddenly shut his blog down. Thevolunteer reportedly said he could not endure "theconsequences, responsibility and stress". Many thinkhe has been warned because he has revealed that"left behind children" are not adequately looked afterand, for that reason, he cannot but keep a low profile.
Eckart Loewe, the volunteer, who was born in1968 in Germany, once pursued his studies in China.
For more than ten years he has taught in a poor villagein China and looked after "left behind children" there.
According to an All All--China Women's Federationsurvey whose findings were published in May last year,there are more than 300 millions minors in China.
There are about 58 million left behind children in ruralareas, of whom more than 40 million are under 14. Thesurvey shows left behind children aredelinquency delinquency--prone. It can be imagined that suchchildren, deprived of parental discipline, may do poorlyin school and are liable to go astray.
Loewe has indeed described poverty in ruralChina. He has directly helped impoverished families. Ifmore people are aware of what he has seen, more willlend children in rural areas a helping hand. Chinesepeople ought to have offered the foreigner from afartheir sincere thanks. However, Loewe's blog has beenshut down. It can thus be imagined that officials incharge of such matters do not think so. They may thinkLoewe has unveiled an inglorious aspect of China.
They may fear people may ask why the governmenthas taken no measures to help the several ten million"left behind children and whether planning officialshave made mistakes.
The Chinese authorities are hostile towardsoutsiders and non non--mainland non non--governmentalorganisations (NGOs) that help Chinese people. LastFebruary, an urgent circular was sent purportedly fromthe leading Party group of the Ministry of Education totertiary institutes. It said that Oxfam Hong Kong ran itsuniversity student volunteer programme on themainland with bad motives and that its top managerswere leading figures of the opposition. Tertiaryinstitutes were told not to have anything to do with theNGO. Oxfam Hong Kong immediately suspended theprogramme.
Though the NGO's case is not entirely similar toLoewe's, they point to the mainland authorities' ideaabout voluntary work - that foreigners and foreignNGOs are welcome to do anti anti--poverty work in China,but they must confine themselves to poverty alleviationand they have no business to concern themselves withwhether China's policies are unfair. Anti-povertyworkers help those in the lowest social stratum.
Nevertheless, those people are poor most probablybecause the government's welfare policy is misguided,resources are unfairly distributed, citizens' rights arenot protected or local officials are corrupt and prone toabuse their powers. For example, left behind childrenhave problems because the authorities have pursuedtheir policy of encourage people to work elsewherewithout providing them with adequate support. Theblame rests on the authorities.
Provincial and municipal governments should notbe paranoiac. They should earnestly make an effort toimprove the people's wellbeing instead of trying torepress welldoers or to prevent foreign groups frominfiltrating into China under the guise of NGOs orforeigners from exposing the dark side of rural areas.
明報英語網「雙語社評」
english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
千萬「留守兒童」欠缺照顧 內地不應逼義工噤聲
一名德國籍義工長期在廣西貧困農村學校教育「留守兒童」（父母皆到城市打工，被留在農村獨自生活或交親友照顧的兒童），把箇中體會寫上網誌，去年更獲中央電視台專訪；但近日網誌突然關閉，更寫上該義工自稱承擔不了「後果、責任和壓力」的字句，外界估計他因揭露內地對留守兒童照顧不足而被警告，被迫「低調」行事。
該名德國籍義工盧安克（ Eckart Loewe Loewe）， ），1968 年生於德國，曾於中國留學， ，10 10 多年來一直在中國貧困農村當教師，並照顧當地的留守兒童。
根據全國婦聯去年55 月公布的調查，中國有33 億多未成年人士，約有5800 萬是農村留守兒童，其中4000 多萬是14 歲以下的小孩，即是說，上千萬個家庭都面對留守兒童的問題。調查更指出，部分留守兒童已成為青少年違法犯罪的高危人群。可以想像，這批兒童沒有父母管教，書讀得不好，也可能會學壞。
盧確實是點出了中國農村困苦的一面，並身體力行地服務貧困家庭。他的所見所聞讓外界知悉，只會讓更多有心扶助農村兒童的人伸出援手，中國人應向這位遠道而來的「老外」誠心道謝才是。但從盧的網誌被關閉就可以想像，主事官員並不是這麼想。他們也許認為，盧揭露了中國社會不光彩的一面，更甚的是，外界同時會質疑，為什麼政府沒有相應的政策協助這批數以千萬計的「留守兒童」，負責規劃的官員是否有過失等等。
中國政府對外地前來施以援手的人士及非政府組織（NGO NGO）抱有敵意。今年）22 月，內地突然流傳一封署名「中共教育部黨組」向全國高校發放的緊急通知，指香港樂施會在內地舉辦的大學生志願者計劃「用心不善」，又指樂施會負責人是「反對派骨幹」，要求學校斷絕來往，香港樂施會旋即暫停相關計劃。
樂施會事件雖然與德籍義工盧安克的情况不盡相同，卻反映了內地政府的同一個思維，就是雖然歡迎外地義工或NGO 到中國扶貧，但只限於扶貧本身，政府政策是否不公平是絕對不能碰的。但弔詭的是，扶貧工作對象是社會的最低層，他們貧窮的原因往往涉及福利政策欠周詳、資源分配不公、個人權益不受保障，甚至是地方權貴貪污濫權等。就以留守兒童為例，明顯就是中國鼓勵農民出外打工政策的配套不周而造成，政府負有不可推卸的責任。
各地省市政府與其天天疑心生暗鬼，把精力用於防範外國勢力假借NGO 之名入侵中國，防範老外義工把農村的陰暗面曝露於人前，忙於打壓好人，不如切切實實把精力用於改善人民的福祉吧。
明報社評 2010.05.24
2010年5月24日星期一
Clue to a fickle housing market
A government land site for residential units in Fan Ling goes on the block today and it will be intriguing to see how the market responds - less than two weeks after a Tung Chung lot auction got hammered.
The sale comes just days after the Housing Society's relaunch of its remaining stock of Sandwich Class Housing Scheme units drew a lackluster response from potential buyers. At its Tai Hang sales office on Friday, more than 40 percent of potential buyers invited failed to show up.
While the phenomenon is baffling, it is also alarming.
Sandwich class housing is a subsidized program similar to the Home Ownership Scheme. It was introduced in the mid-1990s to sell flats to middle- class families - the sandwich class - at concessionary prices. Buyers were subject to income limits and a five-year resale restriction. But it was shelved by the former Tung Chee-hwa administration in a desperate bid to restore stability to the housing market after the Asian financial crisis.
Under pressure, the Housing Society reintroduced 838 units to the market to increase housing supply. Given the fact that the stock was oversubscribed by more than 40 times, few people would possibly expect the no-shows to be so serious, though it would be normal to see a few absentees.
All of a sudden, what has dampened the IPO fever seems to be happening in the housing market too. It is legitimate to ask why so many people opted out at the last minute.
Some are saying the buyers are waiting for the 4,000 HOS units that are due to be sold soon. But I think the lackluster response has more to do with the correction taking place in the private housing market, where prices have fallen by about 10 percent in a number of estates.
As I have often said, customers are clever. They know what they want most, and do not need the government to tell them if it is a wise purchase or not.
It is clear that, seeing a narrowing of price differences following the correction in private housing, many buyers have decided to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. For example, flats at sandwich class housing project The Pinnacle are being sold for some HK$3,000 per square foot. But Metro City, just right next to it, is being sold for about HK$4,200 psf in the secondary market.
Doesn't this, along with past experiences, confirm that buyers prefer private housing to subsidized home ownership flats?
The government is right now consulting the public on whether or not it is necessary for it to subsidize home ownership. While housing minister Eva Cheng Yu-wah and others want a resumption of HOS building, the poor response on the first day of the sandwich class housing relaunch provides a timely reminder there are more factors that need to be considered in forward planning.
Market situations can change swiftly. If the market trend has prompted so many to ignore sandwich class housing now, will it still be necessary to reintroduce a subsidized home ownership scheme?
The government has to tread carefully. The situation is murky nowadays and it is difficult to say which way the market is heading. The Tung Chung site failed to excite buying interest, but a week later a site on The Peak was sold for a record price. What will be the outcome of the Fan Ling site auction today?
While it is anybody's guess, the market is already lowering its expectations. Surveyors are predicting the site - which offers a floor space of 575,000 sq ft - will be sold for up to HK$1.4 billion, about 10 percent down from earlier projections.
Let's see if the outcome will provide another clue to the way forward.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
The sale comes just days after the Housing Society's relaunch of its remaining stock of Sandwich Class Housing Scheme units drew a lackluster response from potential buyers. At its Tai Hang sales office on Friday, more than 40 percent of potential buyers invited failed to show up.
While the phenomenon is baffling, it is also alarming.
Sandwich class housing is a subsidized program similar to the Home Ownership Scheme. It was introduced in the mid-1990s to sell flats to middle- class families - the sandwich class - at concessionary prices. Buyers were subject to income limits and a five-year resale restriction. But it was shelved by the former Tung Chee-hwa administration in a desperate bid to restore stability to the housing market after the Asian financial crisis.
Under pressure, the Housing Society reintroduced 838 units to the market to increase housing supply. Given the fact that the stock was oversubscribed by more than 40 times, few people would possibly expect the no-shows to be so serious, though it would be normal to see a few absentees.
All of a sudden, what has dampened the IPO fever seems to be happening in the housing market too. It is legitimate to ask why so many people opted out at the last minute.
Some are saying the buyers are waiting for the 4,000 HOS units that are due to be sold soon. But I think the lackluster response has more to do with the correction taking place in the private housing market, where prices have fallen by about 10 percent in a number of estates.
As I have often said, customers are clever. They know what they want most, and do not need the government to tell them if it is a wise purchase or not.
It is clear that, seeing a narrowing of price differences following the correction in private housing, many buyers have decided to adopt a wait-and-see attitude. For example, flats at sandwich class housing project The Pinnacle are being sold for some HK$3,000 per square foot. But Metro City, just right next to it, is being sold for about HK$4,200 psf in the secondary market.
Doesn't this, along with past experiences, confirm that buyers prefer private housing to subsidized home ownership flats?
The government is right now consulting the public on whether or not it is necessary for it to subsidize home ownership. While housing minister Eva Cheng Yu-wah and others want a resumption of HOS building, the poor response on the first day of the sandwich class housing relaunch provides a timely reminder there are more factors that need to be considered in forward planning.
Market situations can change swiftly. If the market trend has prompted so many to ignore sandwich class housing now, will it still be necessary to reintroduce a subsidized home ownership scheme?
The government has to tread carefully. The situation is murky nowadays and it is difficult to say which way the market is heading. The Tung Chung site failed to excite buying interest, but a week later a site on The Peak was sold for a record price. What will be the outcome of the Fan Ling site auction today?
While it is anybody's guess, the market is already lowering its expectations. Surveyors are predicting the site - which offers a floor space of 575,000 sq ft - will be sold for up to HK$1.4 billion, about 10 percent down from earlier projections.
Let's see if the outcome will provide another clue to the way forward.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Community engagement
HAVING learned a lesson from what happenedin 2005, the government has adopted a totallydifferent way to consult the public aboutconstitutional reform. It has decided to have principaland bureau secretaries engage the community to drumup support. Yesterday Chief Secretary fired the firstshot. He went to a secondary school to dialogue withits teachers and students. It manifests their opennessand progressiveness for top officials to get out of thegovernment headquarters to listen to what people haveto say. Such efforts are commendable. Belilios teacherNg Mei-lan asked Henry Tang incisive questions. Shefearlessly told the top official what was in her mind. Bydoing so, she admirably demonstrated to her studentshow good citizens should behave.
The government is determined to hold forums invarious districts to urge citizens to support itsproposals in the hope that public opinion will persuademoderate democrats to switch to accepting them.
Those who are against the government's packagemay sneeze at its attempts. They may say they areonly political cosmetics - publicity designed to deceivethe public. Nevertheless, it is open to pan-democraticparties to try to engage citizens and win their supportas the government does.
Yesterday Henry Tang was a little embarrassed.
Nevertheless, that shows the Belilios gathering wasnot a show the government and the school had jointlystaged. It was therefore precious, and the governmentwould do well to continue to have such meetings.
However, it must examine its successes and failures.
For example, officials have been criticised for failing tocast their votes in the by-election. Before they try toengage the public, officials must prepare themselvesfor unexpected challenges. They must sincerelyanswer questions put to them. They can hardlypersuade people to support the government's packageif they just repeat its statements like a recorder or arerendered dumb by sudden questions.
How can one answer a question about one'sfailure to cast one's vote at the by-election? The daybefore yesterday, Rita Fan, who sits on the NationalPeople's Congress Standing Committee, gave a modelanswer. She said that, as most citizens supporteddemocracy and hoped Hong Kong would soonintroduce universal suffrage, one might think manyagreed with the objectives the two parties had putforward and the turnout should not have been so low.
She said it was clear from the outcome that manydisliked antagonising the central government andchose to cast blank votes or not to rote. Her answershows even supporters of democracy may havechosen not to vote in the by-election because theydisapproved of the de facto referendum strategy.
Therefore, failure to vote in the by-election is notfailure to do one's civic duty.
Yesterday, the Chief Secretary gave a replyinferior to Rita Fan's, but Ms Ng Mei-lan, who askedhim questions, did shine.
She fearlessly spoke her mind in the presence ofthe bigwig, questioned his commitment to fulfilling hiscivic duty and called for the election of the ChiefExecutive by universal suffrage. She gave her studentsa vivid civics lesson. By practising what she advocates,she has told her students Hong Kong people must fightfor what is right without fear of the mighty.
Miss Ng's slogan - I want to have the right to electthe CE - is ringing and powerful. The government hasyet to come up with a roadmap for introducinguniversal suffrage, and it is uncertain whether HongKong people will enjoy genuine universal suffrage in2017. Yesterday, Ms Ng bluntly asked Henry Tangquestions to her students' thunderous applause. Thatmight have embarrassed the Chief Secretary.
However, if he sets aside his preconceptions, he willrealise the visit was worth his while because he didhear genuinely held views. If officials persist inengaging the community, they can, on the one hand,sell the government's package and, on the other, listento what people have to day. That is surely helpful indesigning a political system suitable to Hong Kong.
明報英語網「雙語社評」 english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
落區推銷政改做法正確老師有話直說良好示範
2010.05.20
明報社評
政府記取2005 年的教訓，今次政改諮詢改弦易轍，出動司局長落區爭取市民支持，頭炮是昨日政務司長唐英年到中學與師生對話。高官走出政府總部，接受民意洗禮，是開放及進步的表現，值得肯定；而提出尖銳問題的庇理羅士女子中學教師吳美蘭，面對高官而直言不諱，敢於說真話，是對學生的良好公民教育示範。
特區政府決意透過落區及舉辦論壇，游說市民支持方案，希望借民意游說溫和民主派轉軚接受方案。
反對政改方案的人也許會對政府的做法嗤之以鼻，認為只屬政治化妝，以文宣攻勢欺騙市民。
昨日，唐英年面對的情况雖然有一點尷尬，但卻彰顯這不是一場大龍鳳，不是政府與學校聯手做戲，所以特別珍貴，值得繼續做下去，但要檢討得失，例如， 「官員在補選中不投票」這問題社會早已提出，官員落區前必須心中有數，作好準備，隨時應付民眾的挑戰，真誠回應，若只是把官方回應如錄音機般重覆一次，又或被突如其來的質詢窒至啞口無言，就很難達致爭取支持的目標。
如何回應拒絕在立法會補選投票的質詢，全國人大常委范徐麗泰前日已作出示範，她指大部分市民都支持民主、希望早日落實普選， 「兩黨打着的目標應該有好多人認同，投票率不應該這樣低」，但結果顯示市民不認同與中央對立的手段，故選擇不投票或投白票。這說法可清楚顯示，即使是支持民主的人，不少也因為不認同「變相公投」這方式而選擇不投票，因此不投票也不代表「不盡公民責任」。
唐司長昨日的回應跟范太相比便有所不如，反觀提出質詢的吳美蘭老師則光芒四射。
吳老師敢於在權貴面前講真話，質疑官員對公民責任的承擔，又表明要求普選特首，為學生上了一堂活生生的公民教育課，身體力行地說明了港人應不畏強權，據理力爭。
吳老師「我要有權選特首」的口號，鏗鏘有力，政府的方案未能交出普選路線圖，2017 年是否有真普選仍然有變數。吳老師昨日直接提出質疑，加上學生們如雷的掌聲，也許會令司長尷尬，但官員若能放下成見，就會知道這回落區聽到的確是真心話，所以不枉此行。若能堅持做下去，一方面可以推銷政改方案，另方面可以直接聆聽民眾訴求、民間心聲，對制訂一個適合港情的政制必有所裨益。
G lossary
sit onbe a member of.
speak one's mind
say exactly what one thinks in a very direct way.bigwig / 'bIgwIg /important person.
The government is determined to hold forums invarious districts to urge citizens to support itsproposals in the hope that public opinion will persuademoderate democrats to switch to accepting them.
Those who are against the government's packagemay sneeze at its attempts. They may say they areonly political cosmetics - publicity designed to deceivethe public. Nevertheless, it is open to pan-democraticparties to try to engage citizens and win their supportas the government does.
Yesterday Henry Tang was a little embarrassed.
Nevertheless, that shows the Belilios gathering wasnot a show the government and the school had jointlystaged. It was therefore precious, and the governmentwould do well to continue to have such meetings.
However, it must examine its successes and failures.
For example, officials have been criticised for failing tocast their votes in the by-election. Before they try toengage the public, officials must prepare themselvesfor unexpected challenges. They must sincerelyanswer questions put to them. They can hardlypersuade people to support the government's packageif they just repeat its statements like a recorder or arerendered dumb by sudden questions.
How can one answer a question about one'sfailure to cast one's vote at the by-election? The daybefore yesterday, Rita Fan, who sits on the NationalPeople's Congress Standing Committee, gave a modelanswer. She said that, as most citizens supporteddemocracy and hoped Hong Kong would soonintroduce universal suffrage, one might think manyagreed with the objectives the two parties had putforward and the turnout should not have been so low.
She said it was clear from the outcome that manydisliked antagonising the central government andchose to cast blank votes or not to rote. Her answershows even supporters of democracy may havechosen not to vote in the by-election because theydisapproved of the de facto referendum strategy.
Therefore, failure to vote in the by-election is notfailure to do one's civic duty.
Yesterday, the Chief Secretary gave a replyinferior to Rita Fan's, but Ms Ng Mei-lan, who askedhim questions, did shine.
She fearlessly spoke her mind in the presence ofthe bigwig, questioned his commitment to fulfilling hiscivic duty and called for the election of the ChiefExecutive by universal suffrage. She gave her studentsa vivid civics lesson. By practising what she advocates,she has told her students Hong Kong people must fightfor what is right without fear of the mighty.
Miss Ng's slogan - I want to have the right to electthe CE - is ringing and powerful. The government hasyet to come up with a roadmap for introducinguniversal suffrage, and it is uncertain whether HongKong people will enjoy genuine universal suffrage in2017. Yesterday, Ms Ng bluntly asked Henry Tangquestions to her students' thunderous applause. Thatmight have embarrassed the Chief Secretary.
However, if he sets aside his preconceptions, he willrealise the visit was worth his while because he didhear genuinely held views. If officials persist inengaging the community, they can, on the one hand,sell the government's package and, on the other, listento what people have to day. That is surely helpful indesigning a political system suitable to Hong Kong.
明報英語網「雙語社評」 english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
落區推銷政改做法正確老師有話直說良好示範
2010.05.20
明報社評
政府記取2005 年的教訓，今次政改諮詢改弦易轍，出動司局長落區爭取市民支持，頭炮是昨日政務司長唐英年到中學與師生對話。高官走出政府總部，接受民意洗禮，是開放及進步的表現，值得肯定；而提出尖銳問題的庇理羅士女子中學教師吳美蘭，面對高官而直言不諱，敢於說真話，是對學生的良好公民教育示範。
特區政府決意透過落區及舉辦論壇，游說市民支持方案，希望借民意游說溫和民主派轉軚接受方案。
反對政改方案的人也許會對政府的做法嗤之以鼻，認為只屬政治化妝，以文宣攻勢欺騙市民。
昨日，唐英年面對的情况雖然有一點尷尬，但卻彰顯這不是一場大龍鳳，不是政府與學校聯手做戲，所以特別珍貴，值得繼續做下去，但要檢討得失，例如， 「官員在補選中不投票」這問題社會早已提出，官員落區前必須心中有數，作好準備，隨時應付民眾的挑戰，真誠回應，若只是把官方回應如錄音機般重覆一次，又或被突如其來的質詢窒至啞口無言，就很難達致爭取支持的目標。
如何回應拒絕在立法會補選投票的質詢，全國人大常委范徐麗泰前日已作出示範，她指大部分市民都支持民主、希望早日落實普選， 「兩黨打着的目標應該有好多人認同，投票率不應該這樣低」，但結果顯示市民不認同與中央對立的手段，故選擇不投票或投白票。這說法可清楚顯示，即使是支持民主的人，不少也因為不認同「變相公投」這方式而選擇不投票，因此不投票也不代表「不盡公民責任」。
唐司長昨日的回應跟范太相比便有所不如，反觀提出質詢的吳美蘭老師則光芒四射。
吳老師敢於在權貴面前講真話，質疑官員對公民責任的承擔，又表明要求普選特首，為學生上了一堂活生生的公民教育課，身體力行地說明了港人應不畏強權，據理力爭。
吳老師「我要有權選特首」的口號，鏗鏘有力，政府的方案未能交出普選路線圖，2017 年是否有真普選仍然有變數。吳老師昨日直接提出質疑，加上學生們如雷的掌聲，也許會令司長尷尬，但官員若能放下成見，就會知道這回落區聽到的確是真心話，所以不枉此行。若能堅持做下去，一方面可以推銷政改方案，另方面可以直接聆聽民眾訴求、民間心聲，對制訂一個適合港情的政制必有所裨益。
G lossary
sit onbe a member of.
speak one's mind
say exactly what one thinks in a very direct way.bigwig / 'bIgwIg /important person.
2010年5月23日星期日
2010年5月20日星期四
Tide turns for housing scheme
The family of "Uncle Four" Lee Shau- kee paid a record price to bag a scarce, prime site on The Peak to build villas for their personal use.
While the HK$1.82-billion deal may raise some eyebrows in view of the fact the bidding was far more spectacular than what was seen at last week's auction for the Tung Chung site that fetched a base price amid lukewarm response, it helps to show there are really distinct segments in the housing market.
Yes, there will always be people with the ways and means to pay a premium price for anything scarce, and therefore, valuable and highly coveted.
However, what concerns the masses more is Hong Kong's limited supply of small to medium-sized flats. It's clear the government is focusing on this end of the property market. And it seems the effects of the current crackdown on the market is becoming evident in certain private housing estates - such as Tin Shui Wai's Kingswood Villas, where vendors are willing to lower prices.
Furthermore, there is the ongoing public consultation on whether it will be necessary for taxpayers to subsidize home ownership. As I've said, subsidies can come in many forms. The one most discussed by the community is the familiar Home Ownership Scheme.
Should the scheme be resumed? This is an issue warranting delicate handling. HOS has a prominent part in local housing history. When the former Tung Chee-hwa administration scrapped it to help stabilize the volatile housing market, the decision was made carefully. So, there has to be enough support if the current government wants to reverse course.
The consultation exercise could be a tactic to buy time. It's intriguing to note when Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen launched the consultation, he was quick to point out the government's objection to resuming HOS wasn't an irreversible policy.
Then, political heavyweights - and even some developers - began to sound more flexible about the scheme. Yesterday, MTR Corp chairman Raymond Ch'ien Kuo-fung added his support to resuming it. He even went further by suggesting the government has the responsibility to let young people have the expectation of owning their own home.
I get the distinct feeling the tide is already turning in favor of HOS.
Society has truly changed. In the past, families were used to cramming in public rental housing, or partitioned units, while children made do with tiny cubbyholes.
But now, many young people live with parents in private housing, and have grown accustomed to more spacious environments. Unlike the older generation, they're reluctant to accept smaller digs after becoming young adults.
So would it be realistic to expect those growing up in Tai Koo Shing to switch to a small flat in Kingswood Villas in the far north of the New Territories, despite lower prices there?
Guess what will be the outcome of the public consultation? I doubt if it will be anything other than overwhelming support for resuming HOS, in light of the growing sentiment.
Barring the unpredictable - including a housing market collapse - it's almost a foregone conclusion that Tsang will be announcing the scheme's revival in his next policy address.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
While the HK$1.82-billion deal may raise some eyebrows in view of the fact the bidding was far more spectacular than what was seen at last week's auction for the Tung Chung site that fetched a base price amid lukewarm response, it helps to show there are really distinct segments in the housing market.
Yes, there will always be people with the ways and means to pay a premium price for anything scarce, and therefore, valuable and highly coveted.
However, what concerns the masses more is Hong Kong's limited supply of small to medium-sized flats. It's clear the government is focusing on this end of the property market. And it seems the effects of the current crackdown on the market is becoming evident in certain private housing estates - such as Tin Shui Wai's Kingswood Villas, where vendors are willing to lower prices.
Furthermore, there is the ongoing public consultation on whether it will be necessary for taxpayers to subsidize home ownership. As I've said, subsidies can come in many forms. The one most discussed by the community is the familiar Home Ownership Scheme.
Should the scheme be resumed? This is an issue warranting delicate handling. HOS has a prominent part in local housing history. When the former Tung Chee-hwa administration scrapped it to help stabilize the volatile housing market, the decision was made carefully. So, there has to be enough support if the current government wants to reverse course.
The consultation exercise could be a tactic to buy time. It's intriguing to note when Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen launched the consultation, he was quick to point out the government's objection to resuming HOS wasn't an irreversible policy.
Then, political heavyweights - and even some developers - began to sound more flexible about the scheme. Yesterday, MTR Corp chairman Raymond Ch'ien Kuo-fung added his support to resuming it. He even went further by suggesting the government has the responsibility to let young people have the expectation of owning their own home.
I get the distinct feeling the tide is already turning in favor of HOS.
Society has truly changed. In the past, families were used to cramming in public rental housing, or partitioned units, while children made do with tiny cubbyholes.
But now, many young people live with parents in private housing, and have grown accustomed to more spacious environments. Unlike the older generation, they're reluctant to accept smaller digs after becoming young adults.
So would it be realistic to expect those growing up in Tai Koo Shing to switch to a small flat in Kingswood Villas in the far north of the New Territories, despite lower prices there?
Guess what will be the outcome of the public consultation? I doubt if it will be anything other than overwhelming support for resuming HOS, in light of the growing sentiment.
Barring the unpredictable - including a housing market collapse - it's almost a foregone conclusion that Tsang will be announcing the scheme's revival in his next policy address.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
2010年5月19日星期三
Radicals gambled and lost
In the aftermath of the Legislative Council by-election, the public has immediately set its sights on the increasing likelihood of a direct meeting between moderate pan-democrats and the central government.
I'm not sure if the Civic Party-League of Social Democrats coalition feels bitter, but it's definitely good news.
From Beijing's point of view, the small voter turnout of 17.1 percent has created greater room for maneuvering. The Alliance for Universal Suffrage and central government officials were supposed to convene last week. But the meeting was put off amid concerns that playing the card at the wrong time could complicate Sunday's poll.
Clearly, Beijing's tactics are aimed at winning over the doves and keeping the radicals at bay, since it would be unrealistic to expect the Civic-League lawmakers to back the electoral reforms in and beyond 2012.
Both Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and Chief Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen are keen to see the 2012 package passed, for this would be an important grade on their report cards. But, understandably, only the central government has the decisive say.
With the by-election now history, it helps moderate pan-democrats show to the rest of the movement that constructive progress is being made. It offers a new balance favoring peace talks.
The self-proclaimed victory by the Civic-League alliance at the end of the poll was hardly surprising. Ironically, it could also be used as bargaining chips by moderates in their dialogue with the central government. They may tell the cadres that while it was reassuring to see 83 percent of voters refuse to participate in the "referendum," those who did cast ballots shouldn't be ignored.
Having said that, the Civic-League victory statement is plainly absurd. The general view is that they have suffered a serious defeat - even though all five candidates were reelected. Why?
First, they lost sight of the object of the exercise. They sought to abolish functional constituencies in the very beginning, then entangled it with livelihood issues, and later involved itself in the minimum wage argument.
Except for their diehard supporters who would vote regardless, most others failed to detect a clear theme.
Second, they were wrong if they thought the public was blind to figures. When the referendum bid was launched in January, the front set a turnout of 50 percent as the minimum threshold for declaring victory. "Mad Dog" Raymond Wong Yuk-man even said he wouldn't accept reelection if the voter turnout fell short of expectations.
Over the months, the bar kept dropping. A few days before the vote, the radicals said it would be satisfied with 27 percent. After the poll, even the 17.1 percent was good enough. By playing footloose with figures, they couldn't lose. But would the public agree?
Third, they blamed the SAR government for causing the low turnout, criticizing Tsang for taking the lead not to vote. If that argument stands, it would mean the rest of the 2.8 million eligible voters are simple and naive, incapable of thinking for themselves. Isn't this utter nonsense?
Please, Civic-League folks, show some courage and admit that you gambled and lost.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
I'm not sure if the Civic Party-League of Social Democrats coalition feels bitter, but it's definitely good news.
From Beijing's point of view, the small voter turnout of 17.1 percent has created greater room for maneuvering. The Alliance for Universal Suffrage and central government officials were supposed to convene last week. But the meeting was put off amid concerns that playing the card at the wrong time could complicate Sunday's poll.
Clearly, Beijing's tactics are aimed at winning over the doves and keeping the radicals at bay, since it would be unrealistic to expect the Civic-League lawmakers to back the electoral reforms in and beyond 2012.
Both Chief Executive Donald Tsang Yam-kuen and Chief Secretary Henry Tang Ying-yen are keen to see the 2012 package passed, for this would be an important grade on their report cards. But, understandably, only the central government has the decisive say.
With the by-election now history, it helps moderate pan-democrats show to the rest of the movement that constructive progress is being made. It offers a new balance favoring peace talks.
The self-proclaimed victory by the Civic-League alliance at the end of the poll was hardly surprising. Ironically, it could also be used as bargaining chips by moderates in their dialogue with the central government. They may tell the cadres that while it was reassuring to see 83 percent of voters refuse to participate in the "referendum," those who did cast ballots shouldn't be ignored.
Having said that, the Civic-League victory statement is plainly absurd. The general view is that they have suffered a serious defeat - even though all five candidates were reelected. Why?
First, they lost sight of the object of the exercise. They sought to abolish functional constituencies in the very beginning, then entangled it with livelihood issues, and later involved itself in the minimum wage argument.
Except for their diehard supporters who would vote regardless, most others failed to detect a clear theme.
Second, they were wrong if they thought the public was blind to figures. When the referendum bid was launched in January, the front set a turnout of 50 percent as the minimum threshold for declaring victory. "Mad Dog" Raymond Wong Yuk-man even said he wouldn't accept reelection if the voter turnout fell short of expectations.
Over the months, the bar kept dropping. A few days before the vote, the radicals said it would be satisfied with 27 percent. After the poll, even the 17.1 percent was good enough. By playing footloose with figures, they couldn't lose. But would the public agree?
Third, they blamed the SAR government for causing the low turnout, criticizing Tsang for taking the lead not to vote. If that argument stands, it would mean the rest of the 2.8 million eligible voters are simple and naive, incapable of thinking for themselves. Isn't this utter nonsense?
Please, Civic-League folks, show some courage and admit that you gambled and lost.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Beijing to strike in end game
Things are moving fast now that the by- elections are over. But how soon will the new developments lead to a meeting between pan-democratic moderates and the central government?
People are wondering, since, as the old saying goes, it's best to "strike while the iron is hot."
Society is also watching with increasing interest whether a top official from Beijing will be seeing the Alliance for Universal Suffrage immediately and where they will meet. As of yesterday, the alliance was still saying that arrangements have yet to be finalized.
However, it's unlikely to be a one- off exercise with a top central government official attending immediately. Chances are, there will be more than one round of formal meetings - ascending to the next level after completing the first one, similar to playing computer games.
But there shouldn't be too many levels because time is of the essence, with barely two months left before the vote on the 2012 electoral package.
The first official session will have to be held soon after the working group formed by leading members of the alliance and Hong Kong government officials convenes its first working session tomorrow. The guess is the alliance will first publicly meet with officials of the Central Government Liaison Office in Hong Kong, followed by another round at a more senior level.
Furthermore, it would be unusual to see a top official at the first formal meeting because this would go against most commonly-adopted protocols.
Who then will be the top official seeing the alliance at the jackpot level? National People's Congress Standing Committee deputy secretary general Qiao Xiaoyang is the obvious choice. He is senior enough and has been handling the SAR's political reforms. Last month, he appeared in the Great Hall of the People to explain Beijing's views on the issue.
In a conciliatory note, Qiao said the door to democracy is open, leaving it up to lawmakers to decide whether they are ready to enter.
Lastly, it will be pertinent to ask where the top-level meeting will be held. The most common guess would be the mainland, but there are the pros and cons to consider.
If that is indeed the venue, it will emphasize Beijing's sovereignty over Hong Kong. In this case, Shenzhen would be a suitable choice since it is closest to the SAR - without the usual high profile attached to Beijing.
But there are also disadvantages with meeting in the mainland. The SAR government will be unsuitably dwarfed by being seen to be bypassed on this important matter, although it is well- known the central government has the decisive say. This would not be free of political cost to the current SAR administration.
But will Qiao's flying into the SAR be seen as too condescending for Hong Kong people? I don't think so - Qiao is no stranger to the SAR.
In the final analysis, there will be advantages for the top-level meeting to be held here.
Judging by what has happened so far, it is rather clear now that Beijing isn't only aiming at wooing three or four votes from the pan-democratic camp to pass the 2012 electoral package.
It has something much bigger in mind - fundamentally tackling the political bickerings that have dragged us down for too long.
英文虎報 Central Station By Mary Ma
People are wondering, since, as the old saying goes, it's best to "strike while the iron is hot."
Society is also watching with increasing interest whether a top official from Beijing will be seeing the Alliance for Universal Suffrage immediately and where they will meet. As of yesterday, the alliance was still saying that arrangements have yet to be finalized.
However, it's unlikely to be a one- off exercise with a top central government official attending immediately. Chances are, there will be more than one round of formal meetings - ascending to the next level after completing the first one, similar to playing computer games.
But there shouldn't be too many levels because time is of the essence, with barely two months left before the vote on the 2012 electoral package.
The first official session will have to be held soon after the working group formed by leading members of the alliance and Hong Kong government officials convenes its first working session tomorrow. The guess is the alliance will first publicly meet with officials of the Central Government Liaison Office in Hong Kong, followed by another round at a more senior level.
Furthermore, it would be unusual to see a top official at the first formal meeting because this would go against most commonly-adopted protocols.
Who then will be the top official seeing the alliance at the jackpot level? National People's Congress Standing Committee deputy secretary general Qiao Xiaoyang is the obvious choice. He is senior enough and has been handling the SAR's political reforms. Last month, he appeared in the Great Hall of the People to explain Beijing's views on the issue.
In a conciliatory note, Qiao said the door to democracy is open, leaving it up to lawmakers to decide whether they are ready to enter.
Lastly, it will be pertinent to ask where the top-level meeting will be held. The most common guess would be the mainland, but there are the pros and cons to consider.
If that is indeed the venue, it will emphasize Beijing's sovereignty over Hong Kong. In this case, Shenzhen would be a suitable choice since it is closest to the SAR - without the usual high profile attached to Beijing.
But there are also disadvantages with meeting in the mainland. The SAR government will be unsuitably dwarfed by being seen to be bypassed on this important matter, although it is well- known the central government has the decisive say. This would not be free of political cost to the current SAR administration.
But will Qiao's flying into the SAR be seen as too condescending for Hong Kong people? I don't think so - Qiao is no stranger to the SAR.
In the final analysis, there will be advantages for the top-level meeting to be held here.
Judging by what has happened so far, it is rather clear now that Beijing isn't only aiming at wooing three or four votes from the pan-democratic camp to pass the 2012 electoral package.
It has something much bigger in mind - fundamentally tackling the political bickerings that have dragged us down for too long.
英文虎報 Central Station By Mary Ma
Gap year plan 1
Writer's ProfileAn unconventional boardingschool-educated gap year student who isabout to study at Oxford University.The usual gap year plan for moststudents involves a period of work, lengthytravels and a lot of crashing of friends'universities. I must say, my gap yearfollows that bland (枯燥乏味的) format, butI sure have tried to spice things up a little.Starting with the job...
As I shall be studying Biochemistry atOxford, I was keen to get more experienceon the discipline, in order to understandwhat I am delving into (as Biochemistry isnot taught at school). I was incrediblyfortunate to gain a six-month placementwhere I worked on a project related toswine flu, aiming to find out the viralprotein structure, so that specific drugs canbe designed to tackle it-a research areawhich deserves a lot of credit. Anotherproject was to do with a brain receptorsensitive to psychoactive drugs such ascocaine (可卡因)-it was pretty excitingwhen I ordered in small amounts ofthe drug for research purposes!Before I bore you with thescientific details, the mainadvantage of having a job in my gapyear was that I achieved hugely inall aspects of the subject-I met leadingscientists in the world, attended famouslectures, learnt and practised techniquesthat most undergraduates weren't allowedto do during the course, all of whichcontributed vastly to my development as ascientist.
The most important part, however, wasthat working gave me the rare opportunityto experience the real world, so I'd knowwhat to expect after university. Educationputs us into a great bubble, which oftendistorts ( 扭曲) our perception of society. Ifind, more than ever, that it is incrediblyimportant to step out of that "bubble" inorder to absorb what is really going onaround you. Furthermore, this could giveyou a boost in terms of your CV, as mostemployers prefer applicants with more"real" experience, as well as the sideeffects of maturity, wide knowledge,teamwork, practicality and exposure.
text by Amanda Yu
around 還是about？
Ask&Learn聞問切切
Fai (english@mingpao.com)Have you any questions about English usage?Don't hesitate to send them to us!
陳姓讀者來電郵問，說「在9 時左右」，應該說「around 9 o'clock」還是「about 9o'clock」比較正宗？
About 和around 都可以用來表示近似值，無所謂哪個比較正宗。有人說英國人偏向用about，美國人偏向用around，我看也不一定，反而跟各人習慣更有關係。但 about 和around 這兩個字有時是用得太多太濫了。一個大房間，坐着七八個人，說There are around/about seven people sittingin the room 就不及There are approximatelyseven people sitting in the room 那麼合適了。原因是有一個說法，about 或者around 只可以用在10、20 等齊頭數字，about 20 可以，但around 7、around 13 就有點怪怪的了。無論如何， 一定不可以說There arebetween seven and eight people sitting inthe room。Between 指的是兩個數字之間的數值，別的還可以，人要是不來，一來總是一個一個，絕對不可能會有七至八個人的情形出現，除非是鬧鬼。就算是小孩半價，也不可以說他不是一個完整的人。
As I shall be studying Biochemistry atOxford, I was keen to get more experienceon the discipline, in order to understandwhat I am delving into (as Biochemistry isnot taught at school). I was incrediblyfortunate to gain a six-month placementwhere I worked on a project related toswine flu, aiming to find out the viralprotein structure, so that specific drugs canbe designed to tackle it-a research areawhich deserves a lot of credit. Anotherproject was to do with a brain receptorsensitive to psychoactive drugs such ascocaine (可卡因)-it was pretty excitingwhen I ordered in small amounts ofthe drug for research purposes!Before I bore you with thescientific details, the mainadvantage of having a job in my gapyear was that I achieved hugely inall aspects of the subject-I met leadingscientists in the world, attended famouslectures, learnt and practised techniquesthat most undergraduates weren't allowedto do during the course, all of whichcontributed vastly to my development as ascientist.
The most important part, however, wasthat working gave me the rare opportunityto experience the real world, so I'd knowwhat to expect after university. Educationputs us into a great bubble, which oftendistorts ( 扭曲) our perception of society. Ifind, more than ever, that it is incrediblyimportant to step out of that "bubble" inorder to absorb what is really going onaround you. Furthermore, this could giveyou a boost in terms of your CV, as mostemployers prefer applicants with more"real" experience, as well as the sideeffects of maturity, wide knowledge,teamwork, practicality and exposure.
text by Amanda Yu
around 還是about？
Ask&Learn聞問切切
Fai (english@mingpao.com)Have you any questions about English usage?Don't hesitate to send them to us!
陳姓讀者來電郵問，說「在9 時左右」，應該說「around 9 o'clock」還是「about 9o'clock」比較正宗？
About 和around 都可以用來表示近似值，無所謂哪個比較正宗。有人說英國人偏向用about，美國人偏向用around，我看也不一定，反而跟各人習慣更有關係。但 about 和around 這兩個字有時是用得太多太濫了。一個大房間，坐着七八個人，說There are around/about seven people sittingin the room 就不及There are approximatelyseven people sitting in the room 那麼合適了。原因是有一個說法，about 或者around 只可以用在10、20 等齊頭數字，about 20 可以，但around 7、around 13 就有點怪怪的了。無論如何， 一定不可以說There arebetween seven and eight people sitting inthe room。Between 指的是兩個數字之間的數值，別的還可以，人要是不來，一來總是一個一個，絕對不可能會有七至八個人的情形出現，除非是鬧鬼。就算是小孩半價，也不可以說他不是一個完整的人。
around 還是 about？
陳姓讀者來電郵問，說「在9 時左右」，應該說「around 9 o'clock」還是「about 9o'clock」比較正宗？
About 和around 都可以用來表示近似值，無所謂哪個比較正宗。有人說英國人偏向用about，美國人偏向用around，我看也不一定，反而跟各人習慣更有關係。但 about 和around 這兩個字有時是用得太多太濫了。一個大房間，坐着七八個人，說There are around/about seven people sittingin the room 就不及There are approximatelyseven people sitting in the room 那麼合適了。原因是有一個說法，about 或者around 只可以用在10、20 等齊頭數字，about 20 可以，但around 7、around 13 就有點怪怪的了。無論如何， 一定不可以說There arebetween seven and eight people sitting inthe room。Between 指的是兩個數字之間的數值，別的還可以，人要是不來，一來總是一個一個，絕對不可能會有七至八個人的情形出現，除非是鬧鬼。就算是小孩半價，也不可以說他不是一個完整的人。
About 和around 都可以用來表示近似值，無所謂哪個比較正宗。有人說英國人偏向用about，美國人偏向用around，我看也不一定，反而跟各人習慣更有關係。但 about 和around 這兩個字有時是用得太多太濫了。一個大房間，坐着七八個人，說There are around/about seven people sittingin the room 就不及There are approximatelyseven people sitting in the room 那麼合適了。原因是有一個說法，about 或者around 只可以用在10、20 等齊頭數字，about 20 可以，但around 7、around 13 就有點怪怪的了。無論如何， 一定不可以說There arebetween seven and eight people sitting inthe room。Between 指的是兩個數字之間的數值，別的還可以，人要是不來，一來總是一個一個，絕對不可能會有七至八個人的情形出現，除非是鬧鬼。就算是小孩半價，也不可以說他不是一個完整的人。
Ho 胡志明 Chi-Minh
Ho Chi-Minh was born on May 19, 1890and died on September 2, 1969. He was thePresident (1945-1969) of the DemocraticRepublic of Vietnam (North Vietnam). Hefounded the Indochina Communist Party in1930 and its successor, the Viet Minh, in1941. In 1945, Japan overran Indochina,overthrowing its French colonial rulers.When the Japanese surrendered to theAllies six months later, Ho and his Viet Minhforces seized the opportunity, occupiedHanoi ( 河內), and proclaimed ( 宣告)Vietnamese independence. France refusedto relinquish ( 交出) its former colony, andthe First Indochina War broke out in 1946.Ho's forces defeated the French in 1954,after which the country was partitioned ( 分割) into North and South Vietnam. Ho, whoruled in the north, was soon embroiled (被捲入) in the US-backed regime of Ngo DinhDiem (吳廷琰) in the south in what becameknown as the Vietnam War. NorthVietnamese forces prevailed (戰勝) over thesouth six years after Ho's death.
Leaders & Legends: Ho Chi Minh, a TVprogramme that shows how Ho Chi Minhliberated a country and humbled Westernsuperpowers, premieres tonight at 9pm on Bio Channel (now TV Channel 222)
Leaders & Legends: Ho Chi Minh, a TVprogramme that shows how Ho Chi Minhliberated a country and humbled Westernsuperpowers, premieres tonight at 9pm on Bio Channel (now TV Channel 222)
Doves will meet Beijing officials
SINCE the SAR government put forward its2012 constitutional reform package lastNovember, some moderate democrats (thedoves) have sought to have talks with the centralgovernment in the hope of breaking the deadlock overthe SAR's democratisation. Their efforts have got themsomewhere. Central government officials will talk withthem about constitutional arrangements. This is thefirst opportunity that has arisen in twenty twenty--one years ofbringing about political progress in the SAR.
The forth forth--coming meeting between Beijing officialsand the doves may end the 21 21--year estrangementbetween the central authorities and Hong Kongdemocrats. No sooner had the government unveiled its2012 package that a dove dove--hawk struggle began in thepan pan--democratic camp. The doves have tried to havedialogue with Beijing about a final plan for introducinguniversal suffrage. For taking this position they havecome under fire and suspicion over the past fewmonths. One may say the doves have shown greatfortitude in humiliating circumstances. It is not withease that the forthcoming meeting has been arranged.
We are glad that the central government hasresponded favourably to their goodwill. Nevertheless,because of their long estrangement, they still beargrudges against each other. It is unrealistic to expectthem to agree on an ultimate plan for introducinguniversal suffrage at a single meeting. They will makerare progress if they build up mutual trust and thecentral government makes more concrete pledgesabout the 2017 Chief Executive election and the 2020Legislative Council election.
It is the central government that decides on HongKong's constitutional arrangements. One may say itholds most of the cards. Even if the talks provefruitless and, as a result, the 2012 package is thrownout, the central government will lose little. At mostHong Kong's political situation will remain as it is.
That is not the case with the doves. They areunder great pressure, and much is at stake. First, thehawks may bash them and mistrust them. If anythinggoes awry, they may be given the opprobrious labelof "betrayers of democracy". Second, they must justifythemselves to their supporters. Furthermore, thecentral government has imposed many restrictions onthe 2012 constitutional reform, and the doves havevery few cards. Whether they can achieve anythingdepends on the central government's attitude. Theyare, one may say, beset with severe difficulties.
Nevertheless, they have some chance since theywill meet central government officials. We urge that thedoves, adhering to their principled position, strive to dothe following three things.
(1) They should urge the central government tomake more concrete statements about the 2017 and2020 universal universal--suffrage elections so that citizens willhave greater confidence that they will eventually enjoyuniversal suffrage. That is crucial.
(2) To make it easier to introduce genuineuniversal suffrage, they should urge the centralgovernment to allow the 2010 constitutional reformpackage to be made more democratic.
(3) They should try to make sure that they willcontinue to interact positively with the centralgovernment, and they should see that suchinteractions will eventually take place between thecentral government and all pan pan--democrats.
Estranged for twenty twenty--one years, the two sidesmistrust each other. We know very well these tasks arevery hard to accomplish. It is the central governmentthat holds the key to success. It is in Hong Kong's bestinterests to prevent its political ecology from becomingradical, improve its governance and increase itspolitical stability. If the central government considersthe issue in this light, what we have mentioned aboveis quite sensible and far from excessive. Whether thedoves will succeed depends on the centralgovernment's decision. It can begin a new chapter inHong Kong politics if only it displays great wisdom andgreat boldness.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
21 年來中央官員首會民主派期望政局突破明報社評2010.05.18
去年11 月特區政府推出2012 年政改方案以來，溫和民主派（簡稱鴿派）尋求與中央溝通，解開香港政制終極普選死結，終於有眉目，中央官員將與鴿派會晤商討政制安排問題。這是21 年以來，香港政局良性發展的契機。
這次中央官員與鴿派會晤，乃21 年來中央與民主派僵局的突破，主要是政府拋出2012 年政改方案之後，泛民陣營出現鴿派與鷹派路線分歧，鴿派爭取溝通對話，尋求終極普選方案的取態，過去數月備受攻擊和質疑，可謂忍辱負重。我們高興看到中央對於鴿派的善意也作出善意回應。這次雙方會晤可謂得來不易，不過，基於中央與鴿派畢竟長時間隔膜，有一定芥蒂，若認為一次會晤就可以徹底解決終極普選安排，不切實際，這次會晤，若能夠使雙方建立互信基礎，就2017 行政長官和2020 立法會兩個選舉有更具體承諾，就是難得的進展。
中央主導政制安排，可以說大多數的牌都抓在手中，就算這次與鴿派談不攏， 2012 年方案被否決，中央也沒有實質損失，最多只是香港政局並無改善而已。
鴿派卻不一樣，其壓力甚大、風險極高。首先，他們要面對鷹派的攻擊和質疑，稍有什麼風吹草動，都可能被扣以出賣民主的污名；其次，鴿派要向支持者交代。還有，中央就2012 政改的框框條條那麼多，鴿派手中的牌卻是那麼有限，要取得成績，主要視乎中央的取態，可謂極其困難。
無論如何， 有會晤就有機會，我們要求鴿派必須堅持原則立場，就33 方面向中央爭取：
（1）關於）2017 和2020 真普選的表述，要爭取中央作更具體和實質的表述，增加市民大普選將會實現的信心。這一點最關鍵。
（2）2012 年政改方案，仍有增加民主成分的空間，為真普選創造更多條件。
（3）爭取與中央的良性互動持續下去，類似會晤和交）往正常化，進而擴及全部民主派。
21 年的隔閡和諸多猜疑，要達至這3個成果，我們深切知道難度甚高，而掌握成敗關鍵的是中央。中央若從避免政治生態激化，從香港管治、政治穩定等最大利益考慮，則上述3點訴求合情合理，不算奢求。能否成事，我們認為在中央一念之間，只要中央展現大智慧、大魄力，就可以為香港政局翻開新的一頁。 Glossary
每周一音標 《明報英語網》逢星期二推出「每周一音標」，以視像短片模式教授國際音標，真人發音，歡迎瀏覽網址： english.mingpao.com
The forth forth--coming meeting between Beijing officialsand the doves may end the 21 21--year estrangementbetween the central authorities and Hong Kongdemocrats. No sooner had the government unveiled its2012 package that a dove dove--hawk struggle began in thepan pan--democratic camp. The doves have tried to havedialogue with Beijing about a final plan for introducinguniversal suffrage. For taking this position they havecome under fire and suspicion over the past fewmonths. One may say the doves have shown greatfortitude in humiliating circumstances. It is not withease that the forthcoming meeting has been arranged.
We are glad that the central government hasresponded favourably to their goodwill. Nevertheless,because of their long estrangement, they still beargrudges against each other. It is unrealistic to expectthem to agree on an ultimate plan for introducinguniversal suffrage at a single meeting. They will makerare progress if they build up mutual trust and thecentral government makes more concrete pledgesabout the 2017 Chief Executive election and the 2020Legislative Council election.
It is the central government that decides on HongKong's constitutional arrangements. One may say itholds most of the cards. Even if the talks provefruitless and, as a result, the 2012 package is thrownout, the central government will lose little. At mostHong Kong's political situation will remain as it is.
That is not the case with the doves. They areunder great pressure, and much is at stake. First, thehawks may bash them and mistrust them. If anythinggoes awry, they may be given the opprobrious labelof "betrayers of democracy". Second, they must justifythemselves to their supporters. Furthermore, thecentral government has imposed many restrictions onthe 2012 constitutional reform, and the doves havevery few cards. Whether they can achieve anythingdepends on the central government's attitude. Theyare, one may say, beset with severe difficulties.
Nevertheless, they have some chance since theywill meet central government officials. We urge that thedoves, adhering to their principled position, strive to dothe following three things.
(1) They should urge the central government tomake more concrete statements about the 2017 and2020 universal universal--suffrage elections so that citizens willhave greater confidence that they will eventually enjoyuniversal suffrage. That is crucial.
(2) To make it easier to introduce genuineuniversal suffrage, they should urge the centralgovernment to allow the 2010 constitutional reformpackage to be made more democratic.
(3) They should try to make sure that they willcontinue to interact positively with the centralgovernment, and they should see that suchinteractions will eventually take place between thecentral government and all pan pan--democrats.
Estranged for twenty twenty--one years, the two sidesmistrust each other. We know very well these tasks arevery hard to accomplish. It is the central governmentthat holds the key to success. It is in Hong Kong's bestinterests to prevent its political ecology from becomingradical, improve its governance and increase itspolitical stability. If the central government considersthe issue in this light, what we have mentioned aboveis quite sensible and far from excessive. Whether thedoves will succeed depends on the centralgovernment's decision. It can begin a new chapter inHong Kong politics if only it displays great wisdom andgreat boldness.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
21 年來中央官員首會民主派期望政局突破明報社評2010.05.18
去年11 月特區政府推出2012 年政改方案以來，溫和民主派（簡稱鴿派）尋求與中央溝通，解開香港政制終極普選死結，終於有眉目，中央官員將與鴿派會晤商討政制安排問題。這是21 年以來，香港政局良性發展的契機。
這次中央官員與鴿派會晤，乃21 年來中央與民主派僵局的突破，主要是政府拋出2012 年政改方案之後，泛民陣營出現鴿派與鷹派路線分歧，鴿派爭取溝通對話，尋求終極普選方案的取態，過去數月備受攻擊和質疑，可謂忍辱負重。我們高興看到中央對於鴿派的善意也作出善意回應。這次雙方會晤可謂得來不易，不過，基於中央與鴿派畢竟長時間隔膜，有一定芥蒂，若認為一次會晤就可以徹底解決終極普選安排，不切實際，這次會晤，若能夠使雙方建立互信基礎，就2017 行政長官和2020 立法會兩個選舉有更具體承諾，就是難得的進展。
中央主導政制安排，可以說大多數的牌都抓在手中，就算這次與鴿派談不攏， 2012 年方案被否決，中央也沒有實質損失，最多只是香港政局並無改善而已。
鴿派卻不一樣，其壓力甚大、風險極高。首先，他們要面對鷹派的攻擊和質疑，稍有什麼風吹草動，都可能被扣以出賣民主的污名；其次，鴿派要向支持者交代。還有，中央就2012 政改的框框條條那麼多，鴿派手中的牌卻是那麼有限，要取得成績，主要視乎中央的取態，可謂極其困難。
無論如何， 有會晤就有機會，我們要求鴿派必須堅持原則立場，就33 方面向中央爭取：
（1）關於）2017 和2020 真普選的表述，要爭取中央作更具體和實質的表述，增加市民大普選將會實現的信心。這一點最關鍵。
（2）2012 年政改方案，仍有增加民主成分的空間，為真普選創造更多條件。
（3）爭取與中央的良性互動持續下去，類似會晤和交）往正常化，進而擴及全部民主派。
21 年的隔閡和諸多猜疑，要達至這3個成果，我們深切知道難度甚高，而掌握成敗關鍵的是中央。中央若從避免政治生態激化，從香港管治、政治穩定等最大利益考慮，則上述3點訴求合情合理，不算奢求。能否成事，我們認為在中央一念之間，只要中央展現大智慧、大魄力，就可以為香港政局翻開新的一頁。 Glossary
每周一音標 《明報英語網》逢星期二推出「每周一音標」，以視像短片模式教授國際音標，真人發音，歡迎瀏覽網址： english.mingpao.com
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
