新城知訊台精英A班節目
Download A20100613.mp3 from FileFactory.com
2010年6月24日星期四
Thumbs-up for brave British budget
The British coalition government has produced its first budget, which is considered the country's toughest since World War II. It has immediately raised concerns in the United States - and that's intriguing.
What has British Chancellor George Osborne put in his medicine box for Britain's sluggish economy? Needless to say, it's all bitter pills. The most unpopular must be the increase in value- added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent, affecting almost all consumer items except essentials like food and children's clothing and books.
A sum of 11 billion (HK$127.36 billion) will also be slashed from welfare spending, the budget of every government department will be cut by 25 percent, and there will be a hike in the cap of capital gains tax on property and assets.
There is also a new levy targeting banks which HSBC chief executive Michael Geoghegan said is unfair to HSBC since it survived the global financial crisis without using a single penny from the government. Treating HSBC just like the banks which were bailed out just does not add up, he added.
Like the United States, Europe, including Britain, has been printing banknotes to fund its economic rescue - albeit in a smaller scale. But this has helped spin off a new crisis - national debt - that has already forced the credit downgrading of some "PIIGS" countries.
Greece is in the mire. But it is too small to be a major concern. Britain is a lot bigger, and its failure could become a curse for others.
I cannot bring myself to agree with the view on the other side of the Atlantic - that Osborne's austerity may not be a solution and could instead push Britain into a double-dip recession - while Washington is still pursuing a policy of relaxing monetary supply to keep the domestic economy running. Perhaps the cynics should learn from their Asian friends, who are not inexperienced in this matters.
How they coped during the Asian financial crisis in 1997 provides a valid reference. The crisis started in Thailand with the collapse of the baht. At that time Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt.
As the crisis spread, most of Southeast Asia and Japan saw their currencies slump, their stocks lose value and their asset prices dip. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the hardest hit. Others, like Hong Kong, were also badly affected.
But how did Hong Kong and its Asian neighbors get through the difficult time? Helped by their traditional cultures, Asians overcame the crisis by tightening their belts, allowing the region to emerge as the new world economic powerhouse, with China at the center.
At the time, economists in the West said it was those countries to blame, and the International Monetary Fund required them to adopt austere fiscal policies in order to win its assistance. There is no place for double standards in dealing with crises - now and then. The European debt crisis stemmed from borrowings. In order to overcome the national credit crises now gripping some European countries, they should accept the austerity measures.
And this is not only for Britons but for other European countries as well. By now the world should know there's no miracle cure.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
What has British Chancellor George Osborne put in his medicine box for Britain's sluggish economy? Needless to say, it's all bitter pills. The most unpopular must be the increase in value- added tax, from 17.5 percent to 20 percent, affecting almost all consumer items except essentials like food and children's clothing and books.
A sum of 11 billion (HK$127.36 billion) will also be slashed from welfare spending, the budget of every government department will be cut by 25 percent, and there will be a hike in the cap of capital gains tax on property and assets.
There is also a new levy targeting banks which HSBC chief executive Michael Geoghegan said is unfair to HSBC since it survived the global financial crisis without using a single penny from the government. Treating HSBC just like the banks which were bailed out just does not add up, he added.
Like the United States, Europe, including Britain, has been printing banknotes to fund its economic rescue - albeit in a smaller scale. But this has helped spin off a new crisis - national debt - that has already forced the credit downgrading of some "PIIGS" countries.
Greece is in the mire. But it is too small to be a major concern. Britain is a lot bigger, and its failure could become a curse for others.
I cannot bring myself to agree with the view on the other side of the Atlantic - that Osborne's austerity may not be a solution and could instead push Britain into a double-dip recession - while Washington is still pursuing a policy of relaxing monetary supply to keep the domestic economy running. Perhaps the cynics should learn from their Asian friends, who are not inexperienced in this matters.
How they coped during the Asian financial crisis in 1997 provides a valid reference. The crisis started in Thailand with the collapse of the baht. At that time Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt.
As the crisis spread, most of Southeast Asia and Japan saw their currencies slump, their stocks lose value and their asset prices dip. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the hardest hit. Others, like Hong Kong, were also badly affected.
But how did Hong Kong and its Asian neighbors get through the difficult time? Helped by their traditional cultures, Asians overcame the crisis by tightening their belts, allowing the region to emerge as the new world economic powerhouse, with China at the center.
At the time, economists in the West said it was those countries to blame, and the International Monetary Fund required them to adopt austere fiscal policies in order to win its assistance. There is no place for double standards in dealing with crises - now and then. The European debt crisis stemmed from borrowings. In order to overcome the national credit crises now gripping some European countries, they should accept the austerity measures.
And this is not only for Britons but for other European countries as well. By now the world should know there's no miracle cure.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Demonstrations should be peaceful
TODAY the government puts its 2012constitutional reform package to the vote inthe legislative chamber. People who are for itand those who are against it will rally outside theLegislative Council (Legco) building, which will againbe surrounded by crowds. Rising wind now forebodesa storm. We hope protesters will act in a civilisedmanner in any event. Police officers, who Secretary forSecurity Ambrose Lee has said will act decisively,should enforce the law in a civilised manner. All shouldexercise restraint lest Hong Kong should see clashesor even bloodshed.
We gather that at least ten groups willdemonstrate outside the Legco building, and theiractivities will on the whole be "peaceful and gentle".
However, some who have all along acted fiercely willalso be there. Their ways of demonstration areanything but "peaceful" or "gentle". Because of thisand other factors that may induce violence, it may justbe many people's fond hope that peace andgentleness will reign outside the Legco building. Thatis very unlikely to be the case.
None can tell accurately what will happen in amass movement. However, if any resort to violence orother improper behaviour, decent demonstrators areobligated to do their best to make it clear that theyhave nothing to do with troublemakers. They ought tocondemn their behaviour lest their calls should bedrowned out with foul language or their fight pollutedwith unlawful deeds. If decent demonstrators refuse tobe used by people with ulterior motives, their civilised,rational struggle will radiate deeply moving tension andglamour.
To tell troublemakers the spirit of democracy liesin mutual respect and tolerance is like to play the luteto a cow. The reason is that it is their study to gobeyond the bounds of propriety and gag the majoritythough they are in the minority.
The other day some members of the League ofSocial Democrats were present at an Alliance ofUniversal Suffrage event. They besieged, abused andridiculed members of the Alliance including RichardTsoi, on whom an "All Wrong" label was stuck. Strictlyspeaking, the labeller may have committed the offenceof common assault. Richard Tsoi was toomagnanimous to be bothered about it. However, whatpassed between them demonstrates the differencebetween civility and insolence.
Clashes have recently broken out between policeofficers and demonstrators. Such clashes are oftentriggered by demonstrators' provocations. During ananti-XRL demonstration, a few troublemakers tried toseize barricades and flung glass bottles up. Policeofficers stopped them with pepper spray. It is acceptedthat they provoked the police. No sophistry they canuse helps reverse that view or justify what they did.
Mass movements that are civilised, rational andpeaceful are commendable. It is not satisfactory ifwhether what happens in a demonstration is right hasto be determined with the help of the law. It islamentable if police officers have to use force to putdown a demonstration and, as a result, there isbloodshed. Such a demonstration cannot be describedas a success. There is no preventing people frommaking use of an opportunity to cause trouble during ademonstration. We only hope decent demonstratorswill be alert and avoid being used by such people.
We demand that police officers enforce the law ina civilised manner. During the anti-XRLdemonstration, some legislators and officials werebarred from leaving the Legco building. The policecould do little to help them. They may think they werehumiliated. Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee hastold the police to enforce the law decisively. Yesterday,police officers set ring upon ring of barricades aroundthe Legco building. The atmosphere there is grim.
None doubts that police officers are determined andable to enforce the law. However, in our view, it is offirst importance for them to exercise restraint. Theymust be as tolerant as possible. They must not bequick to use excessive force in the name of law andorder.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm 2010.06.23明報社評
市民抗爭要文明警方執法也要文明
2012 年政改方案決議案，政府今日提交立法會表決，支持和反對方案的團體、人士，都會到立法會大樓外集會，民衆包圍立法會的場面勢將重現。於此山雨欲來風滿樓之際，我們希望無論怎樣，各方要以文明方式抗爭，保安局長李少光聲言會果斷執法的警隊，也要文明執法，各自克制，避免出現衝突甚至流血的場面。
今次反對政改方案的抗爭，據知最少有10 個團體在立法會大樓外示威，群衆組合形式，與反高鐵撥款一役相若。據知整體以「和平溫柔」為基調。不過，一貫取態激烈的人士，也會到場，他們的抗爭手法，與和平溫柔風馬牛不相及，加上其他潛在激烈變數，以反高鐵的前例，屆時會場整體氛圍的和平溫柔，可能只是許多人的主觀良好願望，客觀環境卻不會出現。
無人能夠準確預計群衆運動可能發生什麼事，不過，若有激烈不當行為出現，正派抗爭者有劃清界線與抵制的能力和責任，使抗爭不致被粗言穢語淹沒、甚至被違法行為所污染。只要正派抗爭者不被別有用心的人利用，文明理性抗爭就會煥發使人動容的張力和魅力。
對於一些存心搞事的團體和人士，與他們說民主精神貴在相互尊重和包容，乃對牛彈琴，因為他們的思維裏，只有出位、出格，意圖以少數壓制多數。
日前普選聯一項活動，社民連踩場，普選聯成員除了被圍攻、語言搶白和指摘，成員蔡耀昌被人強貼「超錯」貼紙。嚴格來說，強貼舉措有侵犯個人自由之嫌，蔡耀昌寬宏大量不計較，但是文明與野蠻，在這個互動之間，就見到分野。
同樣地，近期在示威抗爭行動中出現的示威者與警員肢體衝突場面，許多時是執勤警員遭到挑釁所觸發。例如上次反高鐵事件，少數搞事者搶鐵馬、飛擲玻璃瓶等行為，警方以胡椒噴霧鎮壓，事後示威者無論怎樣扭橫折曲美化其行動，也無法扭轉挑釁的論定。
群衆運動能夠文明、理性、平和進行，會最為人稱道；若靠法律判別對錯，已屬次之；若不幸導致警方以武力鎮壓，導致流血事件，則屬敗筆與不幸了。在集會中，若搞事者藉機製造事端，事前也無法制止，只希望正派抗爭者保持警覺，不要盲目被利用而已。
除了抗爭者，我們也要求警方文明執法。反高鐵事件，官員與議員被困事件，警方對於當日的無能為助，或許認為很丟臉，今次保安局長對警隊立下「果斷執法」的軍令狀，警方昨日已經在立法會大樓外佈防，用重重鐵馬把大樓保護起來，瀰漫着一股肅殺之氣。無人懷疑警方執法的決心和能力，不過，我們認為警方首要仍然是克制，盡量容忍，不能動輒以維護社會秩序及安定和平之名，過分使用武力。
Glossary
fond hopea hope about something that is not likely tohappen.
study
an aim one strives to achieve.
magnanimous /mag'nanIm ?s/kind, generous and forgiving.
每周一音標
We gather that at least ten groups willdemonstrate outside the Legco building, and theiractivities will on the whole be "peaceful and gentle".
However, some who have all along acted fiercely willalso be there. Their ways of demonstration areanything but "peaceful" or "gentle". Because of thisand other factors that may induce violence, it may justbe many people's fond hope that peace andgentleness will reign outside the Legco building. Thatis very unlikely to be the case.
None can tell accurately what will happen in amass movement. However, if any resort to violence orother improper behaviour, decent demonstrators areobligated to do their best to make it clear that theyhave nothing to do with troublemakers. They ought tocondemn their behaviour lest their calls should bedrowned out with foul language or their fight pollutedwith unlawful deeds. If decent demonstrators refuse tobe used by people with ulterior motives, their civilised,rational struggle will radiate deeply moving tension andglamour.
To tell troublemakers the spirit of democracy liesin mutual respect and tolerance is like to play the luteto a cow. The reason is that it is their study to gobeyond the bounds of propriety and gag the majoritythough they are in the minority.
The other day some members of the League ofSocial Democrats were present at an Alliance ofUniversal Suffrage event. They besieged, abused andridiculed members of the Alliance including RichardTsoi, on whom an "All Wrong" label was stuck. Strictlyspeaking, the labeller may have committed the offenceof common assault. Richard Tsoi was toomagnanimous to be bothered about it. However, whatpassed between them demonstrates the differencebetween civility and insolence.
Clashes have recently broken out between policeofficers and demonstrators. Such clashes are oftentriggered by demonstrators' provocations. During ananti-XRL demonstration, a few troublemakers tried toseize barricades and flung glass bottles up. Policeofficers stopped them with pepper spray. It is acceptedthat they provoked the police. No sophistry they canuse helps reverse that view or justify what they did.
Mass movements that are civilised, rational andpeaceful are commendable. It is not satisfactory ifwhether what happens in a demonstration is right hasto be determined with the help of the law. It islamentable if police officers have to use force to putdown a demonstration and, as a result, there isbloodshed. Such a demonstration cannot be describedas a success. There is no preventing people frommaking use of an opportunity to cause trouble during ademonstration. We only hope decent demonstratorswill be alert and avoid being used by such people.
We demand that police officers enforce the law ina civilised manner. During the anti-XRLdemonstration, some legislators and officials werebarred from leaving the Legco building. The policecould do little to help them. They may think they werehumiliated. Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee hastold the police to enforce the law decisively. Yesterday,police officers set ring upon ring of barricades aroundthe Legco building. The atmosphere there is grim.
None doubts that police officers are determined andable to enforce the law. However, in our view, it is offirst importance for them to exercise restraint. Theymust be as tolerant as possible. They must not bequick to use excessive force in the name of law andorder.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm 2010.06.23明報社評
市民抗爭要文明警方執法也要文明
2012 年政改方案決議案，政府今日提交立法會表決，支持和反對方案的團體、人士，都會到立法會大樓外集會，民衆包圍立法會的場面勢將重現。於此山雨欲來風滿樓之際，我們希望無論怎樣，各方要以文明方式抗爭，保安局長李少光聲言會果斷執法的警隊，也要文明執法，各自克制，避免出現衝突甚至流血的場面。
今次反對政改方案的抗爭，據知最少有10 個團體在立法會大樓外示威，群衆組合形式，與反高鐵撥款一役相若。據知整體以「和平溫柔」為基調。不過，一貫取態激烈的人士，也會到場，他們的抗爭手法，與和平溫柔風馬牛不相及，加上其他潛在激烈變數，以反高鐵的前例，屆時會場整體氛圍的和平溫柔，可能只是許多人的主觀良好願望，客觀環境卻不會出現。
無人能夠準確預計群衆運動可能發生什麼事，不過，若有激烈不當行為出現，正派抗爭者有劃清界線與抵制的能力和責任，使抗爭不致被粗言穢語淹沒、甚至被違法行為所污染。只要正派抗爭者不被別有用心的人利用，文明理性抗爭就會煥發使人動容的張力和魅力。
對於一些存心搞事的團體和人士，與他們說民主精神貴在相互尊重和包容，乃對牛彈琴，因為他們的思維裏，只有出位、出格，意圖以少數壓制多數。
日前普選聯一項活動，社民連踩場，普選聯成員除了被圍攻、語言搶白和指摘，成員蔡耀昌被人強貼「超錯」貼紙。嚴格來說，強貼舉措有侵犯個人自由之嫌，蔡耀昌寬宏大量不計較，但是文明與野蠻，在這個互動之間，就見到分野。
同樣地，近期在示威抗爭行動中出現的示威者與警員肢體衝突場面，許多時是執勤警員遭到挑釁所觸發。例如上次反高鐵事件，少數搞事者搶鐵馬、飛擲玻璃瓶等行為，警方以胡椒噴霧鎮壓，事後示威者無論怎樣扭橫折曲美化其行動，也無法扭轉挑釁的論定。
群衆運動能夠文明、理性、平和進行，會最為人稱道；若靠法律判別對錯，已屬次之；若不幸導致警方以武力鎮壓，導致流血事件，則屬敗筆與不幸了。在集會中，若搞事者藉機製造事端，事前也無法制止，只希望正派抗爭者保持警覺，不要盲目被利用而已。
除了抗爭者，我們也要求警方文明執法。反高鐵事件，官員與議員被困事件，警方對於當日的無能為助，或許認為很丟臉，今次保安局長對警隊立下「果斷執法」的軍令狀，警方昨日已經在立法會大樓外佈防，用重重鐵馬把大樓保護起來，瀰漫着一股肅殺之氣。無人懷疑警方執法的決心和能力，不過，我們認為警方首要仍然是克制，盡量容忍，不能動輒以維護社會秩序及安定和平之名，過分使用武力。
Glossary
fond hopea hope about something that is not likely tohappen.
study
an aim one strives to achieve.
magnanimous /mag'nanIm ?s/kind, generous and forgiving.
每周一音標
2010年6月23日星期三
New balance of power
Passage of the 2012 electoral reforms in the legislature looks to be a foregone conclusion, despite the fact scores of protesters are certain to surround the Legislative Council building today.
Undoubtedly, radicals led by the League of Social Democrats will go after the Democratic Party members following their backing for the reform package, based on its "one-person-two-votes" model. Will the Democrats break up under radical pressure from inside and outside the party?
Nobody likes "running dog" labels. While it can't be ruled out that some members - including founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming - may quit the Democratic Party after today's vote, the party will surely survive the blow.
In the months preceding the dialogue, the Democrats also broke ranks with radicals in the league and Civic Party over their campaign to turn the legislative by-election into a referendum. In retrospect, the Democrats not only survived the split with their political allies, but also proved they were right in refusing to be part of the referendum.
The Democrats' decision then has helped to bring about their breakthrough with the central government today. After leading the Democrats to reject the referendum-linked by-election, party vanguard Szeto Wah also played a key role in initiating the "one-person- two-votes" solution to break the deadlock on political development - fending off pressure Lee had been trying to exert on members to scuttle it.
It would be intriguing to ask where Lee - dubbed the "Father of Democracy" by his supporters - would go if he bolts the party he founded. Chances are, he would join the Civic Party instead, since he has identified himself with the Civics for some time.
Today's breakthrough is important because it will prevent society from sliding into radicalism. But what will the future hold for the balance of power?
Certainly, the establishment won't switch off its dialogue with the Democrats after the vote. The governments here and in Beijing will continue to engage them in order to create greater room for cooperation that, once established, will bode well for SAR governance.
However, this will also affect the government's working relationship with pro-establishment parties, particularly the Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.
Bitter over being left in the cold over the political reforms, the DAB will likely place greater emphasis on livelihood issues, and play tough with the government on general policy matters.
Nothing will change for the League, which will continue to play the role of radical opposition.
The Civic Party will end up the biggest loser after the political cards are shuffled. While it will continue to cast opposition votes in the near future, it is also under pressure to find a new position on the political spectrum for itself.
Today's vote won't please everybody, but it's arguably the best possible outcome at this stage. Hopefully, the breakthrough will pave the way for political parties to show greater readiness to compromise on future contentious issues.
But it would be naive to think it will be all smooth sailing from now on.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Undoubtedly, radicals led by the League of Social Democrats will go after the Democratic Party members following their backing for the reform package, based on its "one-person-two-votes" model. Will the Democrats break up under radical pressure from inside and outside the party?
Nobody likes "running dog" labels. While it can't be ruled out that some members - including founding chairman Martin Lee Chu-ming - may quit the Democratic Party after today's vote, the party will surely survive the blow.
In the months preceding the dialogue, the Democrats also broke ranks with radicals in the league and Civic Party over their campaign to turn the legislative by-election into a referendum. In retrospect, the Democrats not only survived the split with their political allies, but also proved they were right in refusing to be part of the referendum.
The Democrats' decision then has helped to bring about their breakthrough with the central government today. After leading the Democrats to reject the referendum-linked by-election, party vanguard Szeto Wah also played a key role in initiating the "one-person- two-votes" solution to break the deadlock on political development - fending off pressure Lee had been trying to exert on members to scuttle it.
It would be intriguing to ask where Lee - dubbed the "Father of Democracy" by his supporters - would go if he bolts the party he founded. Chances are, he would join the Civic Party instead, since he has identified himself with the Civics for some time.
Today's breakthrough is important because it will prevent society from sliding into radicalism. But what will the future hold for the balance of power?
Certainly, the establishment won't switch off its dialogue with the Democrats after the vote. The governments here and in Beijing will continue to engage them in order to create greater room for cooperation that, once established, will bode well for SAR governance.
However, this will also affect the government's working relationship with pro-establishment parties, particularly the Democratic Alliance for Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong.
Bitter over being left in the cold over the political reforms, the DAB will likely place greater emphasis on livelihood issues, and play tough with the government on general policy matters.
Nothing will change for the League, which will continue to play the role of radical opposition.
The Civic Party will end up the biggest loser after the political cards are shuffled. While it will continue to cast opposition votes in the near future, it is also under pressure to find a new position on the political spectrum for itself.
Today's vote won't please everybody, but it's arguably the best possible outcome at this stage. Hopefully, the breakthrough will pave the way for political parties to show greater readiness to compromise on future contentious issues.
But it would be naive to think it will be all smooth sailing from now on.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
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。
Jerusalem 耶路撒冷
耶路撒冷位於亞非交接處， 地中海（the Mediterranean Sea） 東岸的巴勒斯坦（Palestine） 中部。自古以來，沒有城市可以像耶路撒冷那樣，是猶太教、基督教和伊斯蘭教共同的「聖城」，接受來自世界各地18 億教徒的頂禮膜拜。三大宗教的烙印深深印在耶路撒冷舊城的每一個角落，凡是《舊約》、《新約》中提到的人名、事件和有關地方，都可以在這裏找到相應的教堂和殿宇。三大宗教的信徒都熱愛聖城，為了爭奪聖城，幾千年來這裏不知道發生過多少次戰爭。
Jaguar 積架
積架是英國轎車中的名牌，商標為一隻跳躍前撲的美洲豹。
積架於1922 年由里昂斯與偉兹利共同創立，前身是燕子汽車配件公司，1945 年易名為積架汽車公司。該公司於1989 年被美國福特汽車公司兼併，成為福特生產豪華轎車的重要基地。積架在英國擁有3 家裝配廠及研發中心。
James Watt 瓦特
瓦特在1736 年出生，父親是造船裝配工人，他自小體弱多病，不能按時入學，在家受教育，自學完成了《物理學原理》，並常到父親的工廠操作機器、修理和做實驗。他後來因父親破產去當學徒，在大學當修理儀器的工人，經過無數次實驗，在1768 年製造出一種能夠運轉的蒸汽機，並申請專利權。除蒸汽機之外，他還發明了一種液體比重計、信件複印機和第一個採用「馬力」作為功率單位。
相關字詞
steam engine 蒸汽機James Watt College 詹姆斯．瓦特學院statue of Watt 瓦特雕像
相關字詞
holy city 聖城Crusader 十字軍The Dome of the Rock 圓頂清真寺The Western Wall 西牆或哭牆
相關字詞
William Lyons 里昂斯The Swallow Sidecar Company燕子汽車配件公司
Jerusalem 耶路撒冷
耶路撒冷位於亞非交接處， 地中海（the Mediterranean Sea） 東岸的巴勒斯坦（Palestine） 中部。自古以來，沒有城市可以像耶路撒冷那樣，是猶太教、基督教和伊斯蘭教共同的「聖城」，接受來自世界各地18 億教徒的頂禮膜拜。三大宗教的烙印深深印在耶路撒冷舊城的每一個角落，凡是《舊約》、《新約》中提到的人名、事件和有關地方，都可以在這裏找到相應的教堂和殿宇。三大宗教的信徒都熱愛聖城，為了爭奪聖城，幾千年來這裏不知道發生過多少次戰爭。
Jaguar 積架
積架是英國轎車中的名牌，商標為一隻跳躍前撲的美洲豹。
積架於1922 年由里昂斯與偉兹利共同創立，前身是燕子汽車配件公司，1945 年易名為積架汽車公司。該公司於1989 年被美國福特汽車公司兼併，成為福特生產豪華轎車的重要基地。積架在英國擁有3 家裝配廠及研發中心。
James Watt 瓦特
瓦特在1736 年出生，父親是造船裝配工人，他自小體弱多病，不能按時入學，在家受教育，自學完成了《物理學原理》，並常到父親的工廠操作機器、修理和做實驗。他後來因父親破產去當學徒，在大學當修理儀器的工人，經過無數次實驗，在1768 年製造出一種能夠運轉的蒸汽機，並申請專利權。除蒸汽機之外，他還發明了一種液體比重計、信件複印機和第一個採用「馬力」作為功率單位。
相關字詞
steam engine 蒸汽機James Watt College 詹姆斯．瓦特學院statue of Watt 瓦特雕像
相關字詞
holy city 聖城Crusader 十字軍The Dome of the Rock 圓頂清真寺The Western Wall 西牆或哭牆
相關字詞
William Lyons 里昂斯The Swallow Sidecar Company燕子汽車配件公司
complimentary
上次講到supplementary和complementary的分別， 其實complementary 和complimentary 兩個字，只是一個英文字母之差，更易混淆。
Complementary 有「使完整」的意思，complimentary 則有「表示敬意的、問候的、讚美的」之意思。奇怪的是，它又可以解作「免費贈送的」，例如：電影院有時贈送complimentary ticket，有些酒店會為住客準備complimentary drinks，出版社免費送書給長期顧客或書評人， 這些書叫做complimentary books。
到底complimentary 怎麼由「表示敬意的、問候的、讚美的」變成「免費贈送的」呢？原來以前做法，向某人表示敬意、問候、讚美時，都要同時附上禮物，即使今天，不少贈品裏面還可以找到一張小卡片，上面印有「With the compliments of...」，加上贈送禮品的公司的名字，也就是說該公司要借禮品向閣下表示敬意。但這些大量製作的禮品，到底含有多大多真誠的敬意，那又是另外的問題了。
Complementary 有「使完整」的意思，complimentary 則有「表示敬意的、問候的、讚美的」之意思。奇怪的是，它又可以解作「免費贈送的」，例如：電影院有時贈送complimentary ticket，有些酒店會為住客準備complimentary drinks，出版社免費送書給長期顧客或書評人， 這些書叫做complimentary books。
到底complimentary 怎麼由「表示敬意的、問候的、讚美的」變成「免費贈送的」呢？原來以前做法，向某人表示敬意、問候、讚美時，都要同時附上禮物，即使今天，不少贈品裏面還可以找到一張小卡片，上面印有「With the compliments of...」，加上贈送禮品的公司的名字，也就是說該公司要借禮品向閣下表示敬意。但這些大量製作的禮品，到底含有多大多真誠的敬意，那又是另外的問題了。
Central government's about about--turn
THE central government and the SARgovernment having accepted the amendedplan the Democratic Party and the Alliance forUniversal Suffrage have proposed, the 2012constitutional reform package is expected to beendorsed by more than three three--thirds of the LegislativeCouncil (Legco) members. Hong Kong's politicalsystem will evolve instead of remaining unchanged.
This is the fruit of many people's persevering efforts.Society is the biggest winner. However, that is but thefirst step in Hong Kong's democratisation. In the nextstage, Hong Kong's democratic movement must beaimed at ensuring that citizens will exercise genuineuniversal suffrage in electing their Chief Executive in2017 and their legislators in 2020.
The constitutional reform is of great significance toHong Kong because democrats have for the first timesince it reverted to Chinese sovereignty thirteen yearsago dialogued with central government officials, andtheir dialogue has produced real fruit.
Just because the constitutional reform hasproduced results, it does not follow that all deep deep--rootedcontradictions can be resolved. Nevertheless, theatmosphere is unlikely to radicalise excessively. Thatwould of course make it easer to solve problems. Inour view, in this the greatest significance of thisachievement of constitutional reform lies.
Donald Tsang has averted a political crisis. His2005 package was thrown out, and the DemocraticParty had threatened to call for a vote of no confidencein him if the 2012 package was also thrown out. Sucha motion would not be carried because theestablishmentarians would escort him. However, inthat event, Donald Tsang's leadership and authoritywould be undermined, and he would have even greaterdifficulty discharging his responsibilities in the next twoyears. His great tenacity has not only saved him butalso prevented Hong Kong's political situation frombecoming disastrous. He deserves praise for his efforts.The Democratic Party and the Alliance forUniversal Suffrage, especially the former, cannot bepraised too highly for what they have done in theconstitutional reform. Indifferent to praise or blame, theDemocratic Party has tenaciously adhered to what itconsiders sound and reasonable though it has beenoverwhelmed by ridicule, scorn and mud mud--slinging. Theperseverance and fortitude Albert Ho, its chairman,has displayed cannot but be described asextraordinary.
Democrat Party members differ about theamended plan. That may mar the party's solidarity.Even Martin Lee, who was founding chairman of it,said he would consider quitting it if it decided toendorse it at a meeting. He put it rather strongly. It isnot surprising that Democrats have differences.
However, those are not differences of principle, for,even if the amended plan had not been proposed, it isnecessary to decide what should become of thefunctional constituencies (FCs). Under the amendedplan, there would be more democratically returnedLegco members. When conventional FC legislators arein the minority, it will become possible to abolish all theFCs. Though it is understandable that Democrats differabout the plan, the party's splitting splitting--up would be out ofall proportion to the situation.
In handling the constitutional reform, the centralgovernment has appeared pragmatic and flexible.Rarely in recent years has it done so in dealing withHong Kong affairs. For that it deserves praise.At the critical moment, the central government,having regard to Hong Kong's general interests, gavethe green light to the amended plan, which it hadrejected. It did so lest Hong Kong's political systemshould remain unchanged. It has displayed such greatcourage and such great wisdom that Hong Kong canget out of the dead end of internal strife it hasremained in for thirteen years.
The flexibility the central government hasdisplayed reminds people that, in the run run--up to thehandover, it often took extraordinary measures to dealwith extraordinary situations. It has however departedfrom that spirit in headling certain Hong Kong affairs,especially its constitutional arrangements. That is whyHong Kong Kong--central government contradictions havedeepened. We hope that flexibility means its handlingof Hong Kong affairs has begun to return to normal.
政改峰迴路轉 社會最大贏家
2012 年政改方案，在中央和特區政府接納民主黨和普選聯提出的改良方案之後，預期可以得到立法會超過三分之二議員支持，使政制可以向前行，不用再原地踏步。這個結果，是各方面努力不懈的成果，而整體社會是最大的贏家。不過，這個結果，只是民主進程邁出的第一步，爭取2017 和2020 年落實行政長官和立法會兩個選舉為真普選，仍然是下階段本港民主運動的目標。今次政改對香港意義重大，因為這是回歸13 年以來，中央首次與民主派溝通對話，取得實質成果。
現在政改取得成果，不等於各種深層次矛盾也相應解套，但是不致過度激化的氛圍，當然較有利處理問題。我們認為這是今次政改成果最重要的意義。
現在的結果，曾蔭權可避過一場政治危機，因為繼2005 年之後，若曾蔭權提出的政改方案再被否決，民主黨已經聲言會在立法會對他提出不信任動議，縱使在建制陣營保駕護航下，不信任動議未獲通過，但是曾蔭權的領導和管治權威，必然遭受貶損，他未來兩年的特首生涯，必然倍添艱困。曾蔭權的鍥而不捨，最終不但自救，也使香港政局不至於走入玉石俱焚的死胡同，他今次的努力值得肯定。
至於民主黨和普選聯，在這次政改的表現，值得高度肯定，特別是民主黨，不計毁譽，面對鋪天蓋地的揶揄、嘲諷、抹黑，仍然堅持立場，擇善固執，主席何俊仁所顯示的堅忍和勇氣，絕不簡單。
民主黨黨內對改良方案有不同意見，對於黨內團結構成衝擊，連創黨主席李柱銘也拋出若民主黨大會通過改良方案，他會考慮離開民主黨的重話。意見不同不足為奇，不過，目前的分歧並非原則性，因為就算無改良方案，仍然要面對功能組別如何處理的問題，改良方案則是藉着增加民主成分議席，逐步使功能組別成為少數，最終使其全面廢除的可行操作。所以，民主黨內有分歧，可以理解，若演變至分裂，與事態的本質就不成比例了。
這次政改安排，中央的對應，總的而言，顯示了近年在香港政治事務上少有的務實和彈性，也值得肯定。在關鍵時刻，中央從香港大局出發，給一度已被否決的改良方案開綠燈，使本港政制不再原地踏步。中央顯示大勇氣和大智慧，使香港有望走出過去13 年內耗不休的死胡同。
中央今次所顯示彈性，使人看到回歸前對香港事務的「特事特辦」做法。近年，在本港一些事務，特別是政制安排上，中央的做法脫離了這個精神，致使本港內部與中央的矛盾加深。中央今次所顯示彈性，我們希望是香港事務回歸正常運轉的開始。
Glossary
suffrage //''ss ??fr frIIdd ??//the right to vote in political elections.
tenacity /t tII''nnaassIIttII//persistence, resolution.
fortitude //''ff ɔɔ:t :tIItju:d/tju:courage in pain or adversity.
This is the fruit of many people's persevering efforts.Society is the biggest winner. However, that is but thefirst step in Hong Kong's democratisation. In the nextstage, Hong Kong's democratic movement must beaimed at ensuring that citizens will exercise genuineuniversal suffrage in electing their Chief Executive in2017 and their legislators in 2020.
The constitutional reform is of great significance toHong Kong because democrats have for the first timesince it reverted to Chinese sovereignty thirteen yearsago dialogued with central government officials, andtheir dialogue has produced real fruit.
Just because the constitutional reform hasproduced results, it does not follow that all deep deep--rootedcontradictions can be resolved. Nevertheless, theatmosphere is unlikely to radicalise excessively. Thatwould of course make it easer to solve problems. Inour view, in this the greatest significance of thisachievement of constitutional reform lies.
Donald Tsang has averted a political crisis. His2005 package was thrown out, and the DemocraticParty had threatened to call for a vote of no confidencein him if the 2012 package was also thrown out. Sucha motion would not be carried because theestablishmentarians would escort him. However, inthat event, Donald Tsang's leadership and authoritywould be undermined, and he would have even greaterdifficulty discharging his responsibilities in the next twoyears. His great tenacity has not only saved him butalso prevented Hong Kong's political situation frombecoming disastrous. He deserves praise for his efforts.The Democratic Party and the Alliance forUniversal Suffrage, especially the former, cannot bepraised too highly for what they have done in theconstitutional reform. Indifferent to praise or blame, theDemocratic Party has tenaciously adhered to what itconsiders sound and reasonable though it has beenoverwhelmed by ridicule, scorn and mud mud--slinging. Theperseverance and fortitude Albert Ho, its chairman,has displayed cannot but be described asextraordinary.
Democrat Party members differ about theamended plan. That may mar the party's solidarity.Even Martin Lee, who was founding chairman of it,said he would consider quitting it if it decided toendorse it at a meeting. He put it rather strongly. It isnot surprising that Democrats have differences.
However, those are not differences of principle, for,even if the amended plan had not been proposed, it isnecessary to decide what should become of thefunctional constituencies (FCs). Under the amendedplan, there would be more democratically returnedLegco members. When conventional FC legislators arein the minority, it will become possible to abolish all theFCs. Though it is understandable that Democrats differabout the plan, the party's splitting splitting--up would be out ofall proportion to the situation.
In handling the constitutional reform, the centralgovernment has appeared pragmatic and flexible.Rarely in recent years has it done so in dealing withHong Kong affairs. For that it deserves praise.At the critical moment, the central government,having regard to Hong Kong's general interests, gavethe green light to the amended plan, which it hadrejected. It did so lest Hong Kong's political systemshould remain unchanged. It has displayed such greatcourage and such great wisdom that Hong Kong canget out of the dead end of internal strife it hasremained in for thirteen years.
The flexibility the central government hasdisplayed reminds people that, in the run run--up to thehandover, it often took extraordinary measures to dealwith extraordinary situations. It has however departedfrom that spirit in headling certain Hong Kong affairs,especially its constitutional arrangements. That is whyHong Kong Kong--central government contradictions havedeepened. We hope that flexibility means its handlingof Hong Kong affairs has begun to return to normal.
政改峰迴路轉 社會最大贏家
2012 年政改方案，在中央和特區政府接納民主黨和普選聯提出的改良方案之後，預期可以得到立法會超過三分之二議員支持，使政制可以向前行，不用再原地踏步。這個結果，是各方面努力不懈的成果，而整體社會是最大的贏家。不過，這個結果，只是民主進程邁出的第一步，爭取2017 和2020 年落實行政長官和立法會兩個選舉為真普選，仍然是下階段本港民主運動的目標。今次政改對香港意義重大，因為這是回歸13 年以來，中央首次與民主派溝通對話，取得實質成果。
現在政改取得成果，不等於各種深層次矛盾也相應解套，但是不致過度激化的氛圍，當然較有利處理問題。我們認為這是今次政改成果最重要的意義。
現在的結果，曾蔭權可避過一場政治危機，因為繼2005 年之後，若曾蔭權提出的政改方案再被否決，民主黨已經聲言會在立法會對他提出不信任動議，縱使在建制陣營保駕護航下，不信任動議未獲通過，但是曾蔭權的領導和管治權威，必然遭受貶損，他未來兩年的特首生涯，必然倍添艱困。曾蔭權的鍥而不捨，最終不但自救，也使香港政局不至於走入玉石俱焚的死胡同，他今次的努力值得肯定。
至於民主黨和普選聯，在這次政改的表現，值得高度肯定，特別是民主黨，不計毁譽，面對鋪天蓋地的揶揄、嘲諷、抹黑，仍然堅持立場，擇善固執，主席何俊仁所顯示的堅忍和勇氣，絕不簡單。
民主黨黨內對改良方案有不同意見，對於黨內團結構成衝擊，連創黨主席李柱銘也拋出若民主黨大會通過改良方案，他會考慮離開民主黨的重話。意見不同不足為奇，不過，目前的分歧並非原則性，因為就算無改良方案，仍然要面對功能組別如何處理的問題，改良方案則是藉着增加民主成分議席，逐步使功能組別成為少數，最終使其全面廢除的可行操作。所以，民主黨內有分歧，可以理解，若演變至分裂，與事態的本質就不成比例了。
這次政改安排，中央的對應，總的而言，顯示了近年在香港政治事務上少有的務實和彈性，也值得肯定。在關鍵時刻，中央從香港大局出發，給一度已被否決的改良方案開綠燈，使本港政制不再原地踏步。中央顯示大勇氣和大智慧，使香港有望走出過去13 年內耗不休的死胡同。
中央今次所顯示彈性，使人看到回歸前對香港事務的「特事特辦」做法。近年，在本港一些事務，特別是政制安排上，中央的做法脫離了這個精神，致使本港內部與中央的矛盾加深。中央今次所顯示彈性，我們希望是香港事務回歸正常運轉的開始。
Glossary
suffrage //''ss ??fr frIIdd ??//the right to vote in political elections.
tenacity /t tII''nnaassIIttII//persistence, resolution.
fortitude //''ff ɔɔ:t :tIItju:d/tju:courage in pain or adversity.
2010年6月22日星期二
True split or just role play?
Amazing, isn't it? "Father of Democracy" Martin Lee Chu-ming is widening his split with the Democratic Party by threatening to quit if it votes for the "one- person, two-votes" proposal for 2012 political reform in the legislature.
Lee is the party's founding chairman, but is now opposing it more vigorously than anyone else.
He says he's angry because his party comrades are totally wrong in allowing compromises, while he's right by refusing to do so. But could it be just the other way around?
Lee's split with the Democrats is hardly isolated. Yesterday, he publicly admitted he failed to see eye-to-eye with his media-tycoon friend Jimmy Lai Chi- ying over this crucial matter too. Perhaps there's nothing more metaphoric than the position split between him and Lai - since both were instrumental in causing pan- democrats to act in concert to veto the political package in 2005.
Lee said he has discussed the latest issue with Lai, and their views are hugely different. He would not elaborate on Lai's thoughts, saying he couldn't speak on his good friend's behalf. But there has been no lack of clues in recent editions of Lai's flagship newspaper, Apple Daily, where insiders began to talk about a shift in editorial position a few days ago, culminating in the paper endorsing the Democrats' "one-person, two-votes" proposal with its de facto editorial yesterday.
It stated that passing the proposal doesn't mean giving up the struggle for genuine universal suffrage and the abolition of functional constituencies. What the Democrats have counter-proposed is only a midway-stop in the direction of universal suffrage - not the end.
Why all these baffling oddities? Should they be taken on face value? Could Lee and Lai have agreed to disagree in order to lead different roles thereafter? Objectively speaking, doing so will allow them to continue to engage the different factions, while retaining a degree of influence over the radical and moderate factions.
It's intriguing to notice a handful of Democratic Party lawmakers - namely James To Kun-sun and Andrew Cheng Kar-foo - have also threatened to break ranks and vote against the alternative plan initiated by their own party. Meanwhile, others like Confederation of Trade Union lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan, and trade unionist lawmaker Leung Yiu-chung are similarly declaring they will vote against the government motions regarding the 2012 reforms.
It's mind-boggling. For Democrats To and Cheng, they have full understanding of the matter. For the CTU's Lee and Leung, they were also members of the Alliance of Universal Suffrage, with Lee even attending the meeting with the Central Government's Liaison Office deputy director Li Gang. They couldn't be ignorant of the dynamics of dialogue. But why are they suddenly opposing what their own people have initiated?
Obviously, they know there will be enough support to pass the political reform proposal, so the outcome wouldn't be affected even if they voted otherwise.
If they oppose the plan, they won't have to face charges of betrayal in the next election. Nevertheless, this places political gain ahead of the public interest.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Lee is the party's founding chairman, but is now opposing it more vigorously than anyone else.
He says he's angry because his party comrades are totally wrong in allowing compromises, while he's right by refusing to do so. But could it be just the other way around?
Lee's split with the Democrats is hardly isolated. Yesterday, he publicly admitted he failed to see eye-to-eye with his media-tycoon friend Jimmy Lai Chi- ying over this crucial matter too. Perhaps there's nothing more metaphoric than the position split between him and Lai - since both were instrumental in causing pan- democrats to act in concert to veto the political package in 2005.
Lee said he has discussed the latest issue with Lai, and their views are hugely different. He would not elaborate on Lai's thoughts, saying he couldn't speak on his good friend's behalf. But there has been no lack of clues in recent editions of Lai's flagship newspaper, Apple Daily, where insiders began to talk about a shift in editorial position a few days ago, culminating in the paper endorsing the Democrats' "one-person, two-votes" proposal with its de facto editorial yesterday.
It stated that passing the proposal doesn't mean giving up the struggle for genuine universal suffrage and the abolition of functional constituencies. What the Democrats have counter-proposed is only a midway-stop in the direction of universal suffrage - not the end.
Why all these baffling oddities? Should they be taken on face value? Could Lee and Lai have agreed to disagree in order to lead different roles thereafter? Objectively speaking, doing so will allow them to continue to engage the different factions, while retaining a degree of influence over the radical and moderate factions.
It's intriguing to notice a handful of Democratic Party lawmakers - namely James To Kun-sun and Andrew Cheng Kar-foo - have also threatened to break ranks and vote against the alternative plan initiated by their own party. Meanwhile, others like Confederation of Trade Union lawmaker Lee Cheuk-yan, and trade unionist lawmaker Leung Yiu-chung are similarly declaring they will vote against the government motions regarding the 2012 reforms.
It's mind-boggling. For Democrats To and Cheng, they have full understanding of the matter. For the CTU's Lee and Leung, they were also members of the Alliance of Universal Suffrage, with Lee even attending the meeting with the Central Government's Liaison Office deputy director Li Gang. They couldn't be ignorant of the dynamics of dialogue. But why are they suddenly opposing what their own people have initiated?
Obviously, they know there will be enough support to pass the political reform proposal, so the outcome wouldn't be affected even if they voted otherwise.
If they oppose the plan, they won't have to face charges of betrayal in the next election. Nevertheless, this places political gain ahead of the public interest.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Balance between neon lights and starlight
HONG KONG has again been featured on the cover of an international magazine. That,alas, is not a good piece of news. Itsglittering night view is on the cover of a special on light pollution of Sky & Telescope, an authoritative international astronomy magazine. Hong Kong should not and cannot become a pitch-dark fishing village again. However, the idea of "extensive development" that brightly lit streets represent prosperity is already out. Now societies aim at balanced and sustained development. The government should hasten to obtain legislation for tackling light pollution so that people whose flats are near big billboards can get to sleep and so that power consumption will come down. This iswhat citizens want the government to do and what it isduty-bound to do.
The special of Sky & Telescope mentions little about Hong Kong. However, light pollution is an important issue here. In 2009, the Environmental Protection Department received 213 complaints about lights, 2.6 times the number in 2008. Many who live in downtown areas have similar experiences. Roadside billboards are illuminated with glaring and even flashing lights. At night their bedrooms are like a disco.
There being no legislation on light pollution, no government department entertains their complaints.
Energy waste is also a concern. Figures of theElectrical and Mechanical Services Department show that, in 2007, lighting accounted for 16% of HongKong's total power consumption. In the past decade,the SAR's total power consumption of lightingincreased 13%.
Hong Kong is a world city. Many believe its neonlights symbolise its prosperity. They say it is utterly unrealistic for people living in downtown areas to complain that light pollution makes stars invisible. It isimpossible to put the clock back. This view makes sense. However, Hong Kong people are not so unrealistic as to want Victoria Harbour to become an observatory where people can gaze at stars. They only want there to be rules governing street and billboardlighting that would protect their right to sleep and, at the same time, reduce energy waste. This demand is reasonable and would in no way inhibit development.
There are in fact ways of reducing light pollution that meet a commercial society's needs.
The secretariat of the Legislative Council hasreleased a study that shows there are rules governinglighting in Japan, the UK and California, the US. For example, billboard lights should illuminate only billboards, and flood lights placed above a certain altitude should be shaded. There are different rules applicable to residential, commercial and rural areas.
Hong Kong, a city where lights never go out,operates twenty-four hours a day and seven days aweek. It is so brightly lit in the evening that it looks as if it were broad daylight. This scene was considered asymbol of its affluence. Scenes of colourful neon lights,often shown on postcards, are one of Hong Kong'sspecial features. Many a visitor has been intoxicatedwith the dazzling night view of Victoria Harbour.
However, a night view created with strong lights is artificial. It erodes the real nocturnal view and makes ithard for people to get repose. In this era when it is considered important to protect human rights, protectthe environment, save energy and live in harmony withnature, the most beautiful night scene is one that represents a balance between neon lights and starlight.
明報社評2010.06.21
在霓虹燈與星空之間作出平衡
香港再次榮登國際雜誌封面，可惜不是好消息。香港璀璨的夜景，成為國際權威天文雜誌Sky & Telescope有關光污染專題的封面圖片。香港不應該也不可能變回烏燈黑火的小漁村，然而，燈火愈光代表愈繁榮的「粗放型」思想已經落伍，現代社會追求的是平衡及可持續發展，盡快立例規管光污染，讓居於廣告招牌旁的居民得以安枕，減少社會能源消耗，是民間的呼聲，更是政府的責任。
雜誌雖然沒有直接提及香港的情况，但光污染在香港同樣是重要議題。環保署2009 年接獲有關燈光的投訴213 宗，是2008 年的2.6 倍，不少居於鬧市的港人都有類同的經歷，街邊的廣告招牌在晚上開着強力甚至閃閃變色的射燈，令睡房變成的士高舞池。由於現時沒有法例監管，居民根本投訴無門。
此外，浪費能源也是社會的關注焦點，根據機電署數字，2007 年照明部分佔全港整體耗電量的16%，過去10年照明用途的總耗電量亦增加了13%。
不少人認為，香港作為國際大都會，霓虹燈是繁榮的象徵，站在市中心投訴光害令人無法看到星空，根本不切實際，社會不可能時光倒流。這說法有一定道理，但港人並非不顧現實地要求把維港變成可以觀星的天文台，港人只是希望對擾人清夢的招牌射燈及街燈作出規管，既能保障港人的「睡眠權」，同時減少能源浪費。這是合理的要求，與社會發展並無衝突。
現實上也有不少可行辦法，既可照顧商業社會的需要，又可減少光污染。
香港立法會秘書處曾發表研究文件，指出日本、英國及美國加州均有相關的規管，包括廣告板照明燈光不可射向廣告之外，射燈光度高於某一水平必須加設遮光設計，在住宅區、商業區及鄉郊地區要實施不同程度的規管。
香港是不夜城，24 小時一周7 日不停運轉，晚上光如白晝曾經是社會富起來的象徵，街上五光十色的霓虹燈是明信片上香港的特色，維港璀璨的夜景叫無數遊人心醉，但由強燈構成的只是人工的夜色，侵蝕了天空上真正的夜色，更侵蝕了人類休息的私人空間。在講求保障人權、講求環保與節能、講求人類與大自然和諧共處的世代，在霓虹燈與星空之間作出平衡，才是最美麗的夜景。
Glossary
entertain
give attention or consideration to.
put the clock back
return to a situation that existed in the past.
repose /rI'pv ʊz/sleep.
The special of Sky & Telescope mentions little about Hong Kong. However, light pollution is an important issue here. In 2009, the Environmental Protection Department received 213 complaints about lights, 2.6 times the number in 2008. Many who live in downtown areas have similar experiences. Roadside billboards are illuminated with glaring and even flashing lights. At night their bedrooms are like a disco.
There being no legislation on light pollution, no government department entertains their complaints.
Energy waste is also a concern. Figures of theElectrical and Mechanical Services Department show that, in 2007, lighting accounted for 16% of HongKong's total power consumption. In the past decade,the SAR's total power consumption of lightingincreased 13%.
Hong Kong is a world city. Many believe its neonlights symbolise its prosperity. They say it is utterly unrealistic for people living in downtown areas to complain that light pollution makes stars invisible. It isimpossible to put the clock back. This view makes sense. However, Hong Kong people are not so unrealistic as to want Victoria Harbour to become an observatory where people can gaze at stars. They only want there to be rules governing street and billboardlighting that would protect their right to sleep and, at the same time, reduce energy waste. This demand is reasonable and would in no way inhibit development.
There are in fact ways of reducing light pollution that meet a commercial society's needs.
The secretariat of the Legislative Council hasreleased a study that shows there are rules governinglighting in Japan, the UK and California, the US. For example, billboard lights should illuminate only billboards, and flood lights placed above a certain altitude should be shaded. There are different rules applicable to residential, commercial and rural areas.
Hong Kong, a city where lights never go out,operates twenty-four hours a day and seven days aweek. It is so brightly lit in the evening that it looks as if it were broad daylight. This scene was considered asymbol of its affluence. Scenes of colourful neon lights,often shown on postcards, are one of Hong Kong'sspecial features. Many a visitor has been intoxicatedwith the dazzling night view of Victoria Harbour.
However, a night view created with strong lights is artificial. It erodes the real nocturnal view and makes ithard for people to get repose. In this era when it is considered important to protect human rights, protectthe environment, save energy and live in harmony withnature, the most beautiful night scene is one that represents a balance between neon lights and starlight.
明報社評2010.06.21
在霓虹燈與星空之間作出平衡
香港再次榮登國際雜誌封面，可惜不是好消息。香港璀璨的夜景，成為國際權威天文雜誌Sky & Telescope有關光污染專題的封面圖片。香港不應該也不可能變回烏燈黑火的小漁村，然而，燈火愈光代表愈繁榮的「粗放型」思想已經落伍，現代社會追求的是平衡及可持續發展，盡快立例規管光污染，讓居於廣告招牌旁的居民得以安枕，減少社會能源消耗，是民間的呼聲，更是政府的責任。
雜誌雖然沒有直接提及香港的情况，但光污染在香港同樣是重要議題。環保署2009 年接獲有關燈光的投訴213 宗，是2008 年的2.6 倍，不少居於鬧市的港人都有類同的經歷，街邊的廣告招牌在晚上開着強力甚至閃閃變色的射燈，令睡房變成的士高舞池。由於現時沒有法例監管，居民根本投訴無門。
此外，浪費能源也是社會的關注焦點，根據機電署數字，2007 年照明部分佔全港整體耗電量的16%，過去10年照明用途的總耗電量亦增加了13%。
不少人認為，香港作為國際大都會，霓虹燈是繁榮的象徵，站在市中心投訴光害令人無法看到星空，根本不切實際，社會不可能時光倒流。這說法有一定道理，但港人並非不顧現實地要求把維港變成可以觀星的天文台，港人只是希望對擾人清夢的招牌射燈及街燈作出規管，既能保障港人的「睡眠權」，同時減少能源浪費。這是合理的要求，與社會發展並無衝突。
現實上也有不少可行辦法，既可照顧商業社會的需要，又可減少光污染。
香港立法會秘書處曾發表研究文件，指出日本、英國及美國加州均有相關的規管，包括廣告板照明燈光不可射向廣告之外，射燈光度高於某一水平必須加設遮光設計，在住宅區、商業區及鄉郊地區要實施不同程度的規管。
香港是不夜城，24 小時一周7 日不停運轉，晚上光如白晝曾經是社會富起來的象徵，街上五光十色的霓虹燈是明信片上香港的特色，維港璀璨的夜景叫無數遊人心醉，但由強燈構成的只是人工的夜色，侵蝕了天空上真正的夜色，更侵蝕了人類休息的私人空間。在講求保障人權、講求環保與節能、講求人類與大自然和諧共處的世代，在霓虹燈與星空之間作出平衡，才是最美麗的夜景。
Glossary
entertain
give attention or consideration to.
put the clock back
return to a situation that existed in the past.
repose /rI'pv ʊz/sleep.
2010年6月21日星期一
Only way to save constitutional reform (continue)
IT is a political reality that, unless the SARgovernment's package is so amended that it isreally more democratic, no democrats will supportit, and it will certainly be thrown out. The governmenthas launched the "Act Now" campaign to drum uppopular support. However, recent Chinese Universityand Hong Kong University polls show fewer than 50%of citizens support it. Support for it tends to dwindle,and more and more citizens tend to oppose it. TheSAR government's plan to rely on popular support tocompel democrats to support its package is unlikely toprove effective.
Under the "amended DC plan", the five DCfunctional constituency (FC) seats to be created in2012 should be filled by DC members nominated bytheir fellow DC members and returned by all votersthat have no FC vote. A Chinese University surveyshows that, while 31.1% of respondents are againstthe "amended DC plan", 58% support it (12 percentagepoints more than those who support the government'spackage (under which the DC FC legislators should bereturned by their fellow DC members). It is clear whatthe people's wish is. There is no reason whatsoeverwhy any democrats should support the SARgovernment's package.
Under the "amended DC plan", only some wouldbe eligible to stand or nominate candidates, which isthe case with the present FC system. An electionunder such a system cannot be lumped with a directelection. It can at most be described as similar to adirect election.
The "amended DC plan" is in no way at odds withthe Basic Law. Most citizens support it. Its adoptionwould end the impasse of constitutional reform, showdialogue could be fruitful and bring about a politicalatmosphere conducive to healthy interactions. Itsadoption would only be favourable to the situation inHong Kong. We do not see it would in any way make itworse. Another point worth attention is that, unlessthey achieve results, the moderate democrats will findthemselves in dire political straits. In that event, thechasm between them and the central government willwiden. Would any democrats care to dialogue with thecentral government if to do so is to commit politicalsuicide? Are we to suppose the central government isdetermined not to dialogue with Hong Kongdemocrats? We hope it is not. If it is, the situation inHong Kong will be very worrying indeed.
When they began to dialogue with centralgovernment officials, the Democratic Party and theAlliance for Universal Suffrage aimed at persuadingthe central government to assure Hong Kong peoplethey would exercise genuine universal suffrage in 2017and 2020. The central government adamantly adheringto the Decision the National People's CongressStanding Committee made in 2007, they could not butsettle for trying to ensure Hong Kong's constitutionalsystem would actually and essentially be moredemocratic in 2012. Even if it gives the green light tothe "amended DC plan", the central government willonly take Hong Kong to another stage of its longprocess of democratisation. That would still be far fromfull democracy, which Hong Kong people have beenstriving to achieve for more than twenty years. Webelieve the Democratic Party, the Alliance for UniversalSuffrage, other pro-democracy groups and mostcitizens will persevere in fighting for genuine universalsuffrage and Hong Kong's full democratisation.
Many pan-democrats believe democracy shouldbe achieved at one go. In our view, only if dialoguebetween democrats and central government officialsproduces positive results will fewer and fewer of themhold this attitude and will trust grow and healthyinteractions increase between the central governmentand the democrats. If this happens, we will see a newchapter in Hong Kong politics. However, at this criticalmoment, all depends on whether the centralgovernment will seize the opportunity to use the onlyway to save the constitutional reform - give the greenlight to the amended DC plan. Unless it does so, it isidle to harbour any fair hope.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
明報社評 2010.06.17
區會改良方案 政改唯一活路（續）
目前的政治現實，就是政府的方案若不作修訂，增加具體而實質的民主成分，民主派不會支持，方案勢必被否決。事實上，雖然政府以「起錨」等大動作爭取民意，但是根據港大和中大的最新民調數字顯示，政府方案的支持率不但未過半數，而且呈現支持率下降，反對方案則有顯著上升之勢。政府以民意迫使民主派支持其方案的操作，看來難以奏效。
至於民主黨和普選聯提出的改良方案（即政府方案中2012 年新增的5 個區議會功能組別議席，由區議員提名，交由全港未有在功能組別投票權的選民選出），根據中大的民調顯示，有58%受訪市民表示支持（較區議員互選的政府方案多12 個百分點），只有31.1%不支持。民意向背十分清晰，民主派絕無支持政府方案之理。
另外，改良方案的提名權和參選權，與現行傳統功能組別一樣，都受到限制，不能與直選相提並論，充其量只能說類近直選而已。
改良方案於法既無不合，又得到大多數市民支持，可以化解政制困局，而且顯示溝通對話路線可以取得積極成果，開創日後良性互動的政治氛圍，對於整體香港情勢，只有好處，看不到有何壞處。還有一點值得注意的是，若溫和民主派未能取得成果，則他們的政治處境將極其艱困；經此一役，中央與民主派的鴻溝會更大，若與中央溝通等同政治自殺，則日後還會有民主派願意與中央走上溝通之路？難道中央就抱定不再與民主派溝通了？我們希望中央切勿作如是想，否則香港整體局面堪虞。
民主黨和普選聯這次與中央溝通過程中，原本要求中央確認2017 和2020 年的兩個選舉為真普選，但是在中央堅持按2007 年人大常委會的《決定》辦事下，民主派只能退而求其次，爭取2012 年有實質而具體的民主成分進展。就算改良方案最終得到中央首肯，對於整體民主進程，也只是階段性成果，與香港大多數市民爭取了20多年的全面民主化進程，仍然相距甚遠。我們相信民主黨、普選聯，以至其他民主黨派和大多數市民，仍然會為爭取香港實現真普選、全面民主化而努力。
我們相信，只要與中央溝通、對話可以取得積極成果，則泛民陣營不少人仍然抱持的畢其功於一役的心態，才會逐漸淡化，中央與民主派的互信和良性互動就可以逐步建立起來，果能如此，香港政局就會揭開新的一頁。不過，這樣的期盼，前提是在此關鍵時刻，中央要把握和善用區議會改良方案這個活門，否則一切良好願望都屬空談。
Glossary
stand
be a candidate in an election.chasm / 'kaz?m /
a very big difference between two peopleor groups.
idle useless.
Under the "amended DC plan", the five DCfunctional constituency (FC) seats to be created in2012 should be filled by DC members nominated bytheir fellow DC members and returned by all votersthat have no FC vote. A Chinese University surveyshows that, while 31.1% of respondents are againstthe "amended DC plan", 58% support it (12 percentagepoints more than those who support the government'spackage (under which the DC FC legislators should bereturned by their fellow DC members). It is clear whatthe people's wish is. There is no reason whatsoeverwhy any democrats should support the SARgovernment's package.
Under the "amended DC plan", only some wouldbe eligible to stand or nominate candidates, which isthe case with the present FC system. An electionunder such a system cannot be lumped with a directelection. It can at most be described as similar to adirect election.
The "amended DC plan" is in no way at odds withthe Basic Law. Most citizens support it. Its adoptionwould end the impasse of constitutional reform, showdialogue could be fruitful and bring about a politicalatmosphere conducive to healthy interactions. Itsadoption would only be favourable to the situation inHong Kong. We do not see it would in any way make itworse. Another point worth attention is that, unlessthey achieve results, the moderate democrats will findthemselves in dire political straits. In that event, thechasm between them and the central government willwiden. Would any democrats care to dialogue with thecentral government if to do so is to commit politicalsuicide? Are we to suppose the central government isdetermined not to dialogue with Hong Kongdemocrats? We hope it is not. If it is, the situation inHong Kong will be very worrying indeed.
When they began to dialogue with centralgovernment officials, the Democratic Party and theAlliance for Universal Suffrage aimed at persuadingthe central government to assure Hong Kong peoplethey would exercise genuine universal suffrage in 2017and 2020. The central government adamantly adheringto the Decision the National People's CongressStanding Committee made in 2007, they could not butsettle for trying to ensure Hong Kong's constitutionalsystem would actually and essentially be moredemocratic in 2012. Even if it gives the green light tothe "amended DC plan", the central government willonly take Hong Kong to another stage of its longprocess of democratisation. That would still be far fromfull democracy, which Hong Kong people have beenstriving to achieve for more than twenty years. Webelieve the Democratic Party, the Alliance for UniversalSuffrage, other pro-democracy groups and mostcitizens will persevere in fighting for genuine universalsuffrage and Hong Kong's full democratisation.
Many pan-democrats believe democracy shouldbe achieved at one go. In our view, only if dialoguebetween democrats and central government officialsproduces positive results will fewer and fewer of themhold this attitude and will trust grow and healthyinteractions increase between the central governmentand the democrats. If this happens, we will see a newchapter in Hong Kong politics. However, at this criticalmoment, all depends on whether the centralgovernment will seize the opportunity to use the onlyway to save the constitutional reform - give the greenlight to the amended DC plan. Unless it does so, it isidle to harbour any fair hope.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
明報社評 2010.06.17
區會改良方案 政改唯一活路（續）
目前的政治現實，就是政府的方案若不作修訂，增加具體而實質的民主成分，民主派不會支持，方案勢必被否決。事實上，雖然政府以「起錨」等大動作爭取民意，但是根據港大和中大的最新民調數字顯示，政府方案的支持率不但未過半數，而且呈現支持率下降，反對方案則有顯著上升之勢。政府以民意迫使民主派支持其方案的操作，看來難以奏效。
至於民主黨和普選聯提出的改良方案（即政府方案中2012 年新增的5 個區議會功能組別議席，由區議員提名，交由全港未有在功能組別投票權的選民選出），根據中大的民調顯示，有58%受訪市民表示支持（較區議員互選的政府方案多12 個百分點），只有31.1%不支持。民意向背十分清晰，民主派絕無支持政府方案之理。
另外，改良方案的提名權和參選權，與現行傳統功能組別一樣，都受到限制，不能與直選相提並論，充其量只能說類近直選而已。
改良方案於法既無不合，又得到大多數市民支持，可以化解政制困局，而且顯示溝通對話路線可以取得積極成果，開創日後良性互動的政治氛圍，對於整體香港情勢，只有好處，看不到有何壞處。還有一點值得注意的是，若溫和民主派未能取得成果，則他們的政治處境將極其艱困；經此一役，中央與民主派的鴻溝會更大，若與中央溝通等同政治自殺，則日後還會有民主派願意與中央走上溝通之路？難道中央就抱定不再與民主派溝通了？我們希望中央切勿作如是想，否則香港整體局面堪虞。
民主黨和普選聯這次與中央溝通過程中，原本要求中央確認2017 和2020 年的兩個選舉為真普選，但是在中央堅持按2007 年人大常委會的《決定》辦事下，民主派只能退而求其次，爭取2012 年有實質而具體的民主成分進展。就算改良方案最終得到中央首肯，對於整體民主進程，也只是階段性成果，與香港大多數市民爭取了20多年的全面民主化進程，仍然相距甚遠。我們相信民主黨、普選聯，以至其他民主黨派和大多數市民，仍然會為爭取香港實現真普選、全面民主化而努力。
我們相信，只要與中央溝通、對話可以取得積極成果，則泛民陣營不少人仍然抱持的畢其功於一役的心態，才會逐漸淡化，中央與民主派的互信和良性互動就可以逐步建立起來，果能如此，香港政局就會揭開新的一頁。不過，這樣的期盼，前提是在此關鍵時刻，中央要把握和善用區議會改良方案這個活門，否則一切良好願望都屬空談。
Glossary
stand
be a candidate in an election.chasm / 'kaz?m /
a very big difference between two peopleor groups.
idle useless.
Only way to save constitutional reform
THE government is to put its package ofproposals for the methods of selecting theChief Executive (CE) and forming theLegislative Council (Legco) in 2012 to the vote inLegco next Wednesday. Much negotiation has takenplace since more than six months ago. As mattersstand, the constitutional reform is in a critical stage.
The only thing that can save it now is the "amendedDistrict Council (DC) plan" the Democratic Party andthe Alliance for Universal Suffrage have put forward. Inour view, the central government and theestablishmentarians should, having regard to HongKong's overall interests, give the green light to it. Bydoing so, they can allow Hong Kong's constitutionalsystem to "move forward" and avert what would bedetrimental to Hong Kong's development - prevent itspolitical ecology from radicalising, its political situationfrom worsening and its government from weakening.By doing so, they can also bring about a new era ofhealthy interactions. We support the "amended DCplan". Its adoption would greatly delight us.
At this critical moment two matters are worthdiscussing - how the central government should lookat the "amended DC plan" and how the plan wouldhelp extricate Hong Kong from political difficulty.
We propose to talk about the central government'sstance first. On the face of it, even if the SARgovernment's package is thrown out, the centralgovernment will lose nothing. However, we think that, ifit believes so, it misreads the situation, and that wouldnot conduce to Hong Kong's overall interests.
First, the rejection of the SAR government'spackage will have totally different effects to that of its2005 package. Because the pan-democratic camp wasdivided over the "by election-referendum", it becamepossible for central government officials and moderatedemocrats to meet for the first time in twenty-oneyears. They talked about constitutional arrangementsat their "ice-breaking" meeting. As it has come to thefore, the central government can no longer say it hasnothing to do with the fate of the SAR government'spackage. Who should be to blame if it is thrown out? Ina survey the Public Opinion Programme at theUniversity of Hong Kong recently carried out, 34% ofthe respondents said the central government, 28% thedemocrats, and 19% CE Donald Tsang. The figuressuggest that the rejection of the package would tarnishthe central government's image among citizens andlower it in their estimation.
Second, the central government must not look atthe fate of the SAR government's package inisolation. It must have regard to the whole situationand examine what may result from its rejection beforeit can come to the right decision. It is quite certain that,if, notwithstanding the moderate democrats' talks withcentral government officials, the SAR government'spackage is thrown out, their dialogue line will be seenas unsuccessful, the hawks' antagonistic line will gainground, the hawks will dictate the pan-democrats'
course, Hong Kong's political ecology will radicalise,antagonism will grow between the government and thepublic, internal strife will intensify, and the governmentwill be in even direr difficulty.
Some of the members of the Democratic Partyand the Alliance for Universal Suffrage whom LOCPG(Liaison Office of the Central People's Government)deputy director Li Gang has met with the centralgovernment's authorisation sit on the standingcommittee of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support ofPatriotic Democratic Movements in China. Over thepast twenty-one years, the central government hasregarded the Hong Kong Alliance as hostile. It used torefuse to have anything to do with any of its leaders.The central government has however broken its owntaboo. Upholding the principle of agreeing to differand maximising common ground, it has allowed AlbertHo, Cheung Man-kwong and Richard Tsoi, who sit onthe Hong Kong Alliance's standing committee, to havea formal meeting with Li Gang in the LOCPG building.That signifies not only the central government'ssincerity and goodwill but also the great courage onthe part of the central government leaders who madethe decision. Important as it is, great courage onlybreaks deadlocks. It takes great wisdom to removewhat makes it hard to carry out constitutional reform.We hope that, at this critical moment, centralgovernment leaders will display such wisdom thatdifficulties will disappear. We hope they will seize theopportunity to usher in a new era of Hong Kong politicsand government. In our view, the "amended DC plan"the Democratic Party and the Alliance for UniversalSuffrage have put forward is what central governmentleaders can avail themselves of to display their greatwisdom. (to be continued)
2010.06.17明報社評
區會改良方案政改唯一活路
政府就2012 年兩個選舉辦法的決議案，下周三提交立法會討論和表決，經過逾半年事態演變和各方折衝樽俎，情勢顯示這次政改之成敗，現正處於關鍵時刻，剩下來唯一可以使政制向前推進的活門，就是民主黨和終極普選聯盟的區議會改良方案（下稱改良方案）。我們認為中央和建制陣營應該從香港大局出發，給改良方案開綠燈，此舉不但使政制向前走，避免出現不利香港發展的「三化」——政治生態激化、政局惡化、政府管治弱化，同時也可以為日後良性互動開創新局面。我們支持改良方案，樂觀其成。
處此關鍵時刻，有兩點值得討論，一是中央的取態，二是改良方案可以為香港政治困局解套。
關於中央的取態，表面上政改再次被否決，中央並無什麼損失，但是我們認為若中央如此判斷，會是誤判，不利於香港整體大局。
首先，今次若再遭到否決，與2005 年相比，所衍生效應絕不相同，主要是今年民主派就補選、公投出現兩條路線分歧，促成了中央與溫和民主派21 年來首次破冰會晤，商討政改安排。所以，今年中央站到台前，特區政府方案的成敗，不能再置身事外。根據港大民意研究計劃的最新民調，若政府的政改方案不獲通過，是誰之過？34%受訪市民認為中央要負最大責任，其次是民主派（28%）、行政長官曾蔭權（19%）。數字顯示，若政改方案再遭否決，會損害中央在市民心目中的形象和地位。
其次，中央不宜孤立地看待這次政改成敗，必須從盱衡全局的高度，檢視可能衍生的效應，作出正確決定。目前幾可肯定的是，如果溫和民主派與中央溝通後，政改方案仍然拉倒，則民主派的溝通對話路線會被視為失敗，鷹派對抗路線勢將抬頭，主導日後泛民陣營的路向，本港政治生態必定激化，屆時朝野尖銳對立，內耗加劇，政府管治更加舉步維艱。
獲中央授權的中聯辦副主任李剛，所會晤的民主黨和普選聯部分成員，有支聯會常委身分，21 年以來，中央視支聯會為敵對團體，過去根本不會與其領導層接觸，這次中央突破本身禁忌，本諸「求大同、存大異」原則，讓何俊仁、張文光、蔡耀昌等支聯會常委進入中聯辦，與李剛正式會晤，此舉不但顯示中央的誠意和善意，作此決策的領導人，更是大勇氣表現。大勇氣是重要的，但仍只能打破僵局；若要解決政改困局，需要大智慧。期望領導人在此關鍵時刻，顯示大智慧化解困局，掌握契機，為香港政局和管治開創新局面。民主黨和普選聯提出的區議會改良方案，我們認為是讓領導人顯示大智慧的切入點。（待續）
Glossary
throw out
decide not to accept.
in isolation
alone, separately.
agree to differ
If two people agree to differ, they accept theyhave different views about something butdecide not to discuss it any longer.
The only thing that can save it now is the "amendedDistrict Council (DC) plan" the Democratic Party andthe Alliance for Universal Suffrage have put forward. Inour view, the central government and theestablishmentarians should, having regard to HongKong's overall interests, give the green light to it. Bydoing so, they can allow Hong Kong's constitutionalsystem to "move forward" and avert what would bedetrimental to Hong Kong's development - prevent itspolitical ecology from radicalising, its political situationfrom worsening and its government from weakening.By doing so, they can also bring about a new era ofhealthy interactions. We support the "amended DCplan". Its adoption would greatly delight us.
At this critical moment two matters are worthdiscussing - how the central government should lookat the "amended DC plan" and how the plan wouldhelp extricate Hong Kong from political difficulty.
We propose to talk about the central government'sstance first. On the face of it, even if the SARgovernment's package is thrown out, the centralgovernment will lose nothing. However, we think that, ifit believes so, it misreads the situation, and that wouldnot conduce to Hong Kong's overall interests.
First, the rejection of the SAR government'spackage will have totally different effects to that of its2005 package. Because the pan-democratic camp wasdivided over the "by election-referendum", it becamepossible for central government officials and moderatedemocrats to meet for the first time in twenty-oneyears. They talked about constitutional arrangementsat their "ice-breaking" meeting. As it has come to thefore, the central government can no longer say it hasnothing to do with the fate of the SAR government'spackage. Who should be to blame if it is thrown out? Ina survey the Public Opinion Programme at theUniversity of Hong Kong recently carried out, 34% ofthe respondents said the central government, 28% thedemocrats, and 19% CE Donald Tsang. The figuressuggest that the rejection of the package would tarnishthe central government's image among citizens andlower it in their estimation.
Second, the central government must not look atthe fate of the SAR government's package inisolation. It must have regard to the whole situationand examine what may result from its rejection beforeit can come to the right decision. It is quite certain that,if, notwithstanding the moderate democrats' talks withcentral government officials, the SAR government'spackage is thrown out, their dialogue line will be seenas unsuccessful, the hawks' antagonistic line will gainground, the hawks will dictate the pan-democrats'
course, Hong Kong's political ecology will radicalise,antagonism will grow between the government and thepublic, internal strife will intensify, and the governmentwill be in even direr difficulty.
Some of the members of the Democratic Partyand the Alliance for Universal Suffrage whom LOCPG(Liaison Office of the Central People's Government)deputy director Li Gang has met with the centralgovernment's authorisation sit on the standingcommittee of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support ofPatriotic Democratic Movements in China. Over thepast twenty-one years, the central government hasregarded the Hong Kong Alliance as hostile. It used torefuse to have anything to do with any of its leaders.The central government has however broken its owntaboo. Upholding the principle of agreeing to differand maximising common ground, it has allowed AlbertHo, Cheung Man-kwong and Richard Tsoi, who sit onthe Hong Kong Alliance's standing committee, to havea formal meeting with Li Gang in the LOCPG building.That signifies not only the central government'ssincerity and goodwill but also the great courage onthe part of the central government leaders who madethe decision. Important as it is, great courage onlybreaks deadlocks. It takes great wisdom to removewhat makes it hard to carry out constitutional reform.We hope that, at this critical moment, centralgovernment leaders will display such wisdom thatdifficulties will disappear. We hope they will seize theopportunity to usher in a new era of Hong Kong politicsand government. In our view, the "amended DC plan"the Democratic Party and the Alliance for UniversalSuffrage have put forward is what central governmentleaders can avail themselves of to display their greatwisdom. (to be continued)
2010.06.17明報社評
區會改良方案政改唯一活路
政府就2012 年兩個選舉辦法的決議案，下周三提交立法會討論和表決，經過逾半年事態演變和各方折衝樽俎，情勢顯示這次政改之成敗，現正處於關鍵時刻，剩下來唯一可以使政制向前推進的活門，就是民主黨和終極普選聯盟的區議會改良方案（下稱改良方案）。我們認為中央和建制陣營應該從香港大局出發，給改良方案開綠燈，此舉不但使政制向前走，避免出現不利香港發展的「三化」——政治生態激化、政局惡化、政府管治弱化，同時也可以為日後良性互動開創新局面。我們支持改良方案，樂觀其成。
處此關鍵時刻，有兩點值得討論，一是中央的取態，二是改良方案可以為香港政治困局解套。
關於中央的取態，表面上政改再次被否決，中央並無什麼損失，但是我們認為若中央如此判斷，會是誤判，不利於香港整體大局。
首先，今次若再遭到否決，與2005 年相比，所衍生效應絕不相同，主要是今年民主派就補選、公投出現兩條路線分歧，促成了中央與溫和民主派21 年來首次破冰會晤，商討政改安排。所以，今年中央站到台前，特區政府方案的成敗，不能再置身事外。根據港大民意研究計劃的最新民調，若政府的政改方案不獲通過，是誰之過？34%受訪市民認為中央要負最大責任，其次是民主派（28%）、行政長官曾蔭權（19%）。數字顯示，若政改方案再遭否決，會損害中央在市民心目中的形象和地位。
其次，中央不宜孤立地看待這次政改成敗，必須從盱衡全局的高度，檢視可能衍生的效應，作出正確決定。目前幾可肯定的是，如果溫和民主派與中央溝通後，政改方案仍然拉倒，則民主派的溝通對話路線會被視為失敗，鷹派對抗路線勢將抬頭，主導日後泛民陣營的路向，本港政治生態必定激化，屆時朝野尖銳對立，內耗加劇，政府管治更加舉步維艱。
獲中央授權的中聯辦副主任李剛，所會晤的民主黨和普選聯部分成員，有支聯會常委身分，21 年以來，中央視支聯會為敵對團體，過去根本不會與其領導層接觸，這次中央突破本身禁忌，本諸「求大同、存大異」原則，讓何俊仁、張文光、蔡耀昌等支聯會常委進入中聯辦，與李剛正式會晤，此舉不但顯示中央的誠意和善意，作此決策的領導人，更是大勇氣表現。大勇氣是重要的，但仍只能打破僵局；若要解決政改困局，需要大智慧。期望領導人在此關鍵時刻，顯示大智慧化解困局，掌握契機，為香港政局和管治開創新局面。民主黨和普選聯提出的區議會改良方案，我們認為是讓領導人顯示大智慧的切入點。（待續）
Glossary
throw out
decide not to accept.
in isolation
alone, separately.
agree to differ
If two people agree to differ, they accept theyhave different views about something butdecide not to discuss it any longer.
Yuan reform signals bullish outlook
Prior to the G20 summit in Toronto later this week, China's central bank said it will restart the reform of the yuan exchange rate regime, with reference to a basket of currencies.
In other words, Beijing will end the yuan's special peg to the US dollar since the start of the global financial crisis.
The People's Bank of China statement says this will enhance exchange rate flexibility. This could also mean the yuan may weaken against the greenback if other basket currencies such as the euro drops in value, but the more general expectation is for the yuan to strengthen.
As I've said before, the yuan will be a safe bet. The only question is how much the revaluation is going to be.
US President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were excited over the Chinese announcement - so much so the central bank had to issue another statement yesterday to dampen expectations before they soared too high. The PBOC insisted it will keep the yuan stable and balanced, ruling out a one-off revaluation.
So, will there be immediate appreciation? While the follow-up statement seems to suggest otherwise, a minor appreciation - say 1 percent - ahead of the G20 shouldn't be ruled out. There is a political need behind the move for both China and the United States.
In Washington, US lawmakers are threatening to take matters into their own hands and pass legislation to tax Chinese imports if the yuan doesn't appreciate. It's a matter of fact - or fate - that yuan valuation has always been a sensitive issue in US-China relations. For Obama and other US politicians, it will be in their interests to press for the yuan to rise because this would stimulate Chinese demand for US products, thus creating more jobs for Americans. This is a pressing issue for anyone looking for a second term in the White House.
But it is unlikely that Beijing will go as far as Washington wishes. Chinese leaders are also under pressure at home not to raise the yuan's value because it will hit exports particularly hard. Will they allow the yuan to rise 3 percent or more against the US dollar by year-end, as some punters predict? It all hinges on the global economic situation.
You may recall that when Geithner unexpectedly changed his Asian tour itinerary to include a brief stop in Beijing to chat with Vice Premier Wang Qishan in April, expectations were high that China was about to replace its dollar peg with the regime using a basket of currencies. But it didn't. Why?
The European national debt crisis was to blame. Because of the credit crisis facing the "PIIGS" countries, governments around the world have to postpone the timetable of their market exit strategies. Had it not been for the new European credit crisis, China may have relaunched the exchange rate regime reform two months ago.
That China thinks now is the right time to end the dollar peg, and to use a currency basket as the reference for the yuan, may also signal its leaders are now more confident about the economic outlook - both domestically and globally. Will Obama offer anything in return at the G20 summit? This is something to watch out for.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
In other words, Beijing will end the yuan's special peg to the US dollar since the start of the global financial crisis.
The People's Bank of China statement says this will enhance exchange rate flexibility. This could also mean the yuan may weaken against the greenback if other basket currencies such as the euro drops in value, but the more general expectation is for the yuan to strengthen.
As I've said before, the yuan will be a safe bet. The only question is how much the revaluation is going to be.
US President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner were excited over the Chinese announcement - so much so the central bank had to issue another statement yesterday to dampen expectations before they soared too high. The PBOC insisted it will keep the yuan stable and balanced, ruling out a one-off revaluation.
So, will there be immediate appreciation? While the follow-up statement seems to suggest otherwise, a minor appreciation - say 1 percent - ahead of the G20 shouldn't be ruled out. There is a political need behind the move for both China and the United States.
In Washington, US lawmakers are threatening to take matters into their own hands and pass legislation to tax Chinese imports if the yuan doesn't appreciate. It's a matter of fact - or fate - that yuan valuation has always been a sensitive issue in US-China relations. For Obama and other US politicians, it will be in their interests to press for the yuan to rise because this would stimulate Chinese demand for US products, thus creating more jobs for Americans. This is a pressing issue for anyone looking for a second term in the White House.
But it is unlikely that Beijing will go as far as Washington wishes. Chinese leaders are also under pressure at home not to raise the yuan's value because it will hit exports particularly hard. Will they allow the yuan to rise 3 percent or more against the US dollar by year-end, as some punters predict? It all hinges on the global economic situation.
You may recall that when Geithner unexpectedly changed his Asian tour itinerary to include a brief stop in Beijing to chat with Vice Premier Wang Qishan in April, expectations were high that China was about to replace its dollar peg with the regime using a basket of currencies. But it didn't. Why?
The European national debt crisis was to blame. Because of the credit crisis facing the "PIIGS" countries, governments around the world have to postpone the timetable of their market exit strategies. Had it not been for the new European credit crisis, China may have relaunched the exchange rate regime reform two months ago.
That China thinks now is the right time to end the dollar peg, and to use a currency basket as the reference for the yuan, may also signal its leaders are now more confident about the economic outlook - both domestically and globally. Will Obama offer anything in return at the G20 summit? This is something to watch out for.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
2010年6月10日星期四
Hong Kong no long needs application list system
THE government has for the first time in eightyears put a site up for auction on its owninitiative. Yesterday the site (where ValleyRoad Estate was) fetched a high price that exceededall market participants' expectations. The auction resultshows Hong Kong no longer needs the application listsystem. The government should initiate land auctionsfrom time to time in the light of housing demand. Itdoes not matter whether they are regular or irregular.The key word is "initiate". Only if it tries to straightenout supply and demand by controlling land supply willHong Kong's property market develop healthily andsteadily.
It is worth notice that developers are bullish aboutthe market. Sun Hung Kai Properties got the site for$10.9 billion, or 12,539 a square foot. Both figures arerecord highs for Kowloon sites.
When a piece of land goes for a high price, thepublic purse gains most. This year the government canexpect to have considerable revenue from land premia.Judging from the cost of investment, the developer ofthe site must sell flats at $20,000 a square foot at leastbefore it can make a reasonable profit. Such a price isway beyond ordinary Hong Kong salary-earners'
means. It seems clear from certain trends that haveappeared in Hong Kong's property market that thedeveloper will target not only locals but also mainlandbig spenders. Mainlanders are keen on acquiringproperties in Hong Kong. That evidences the SAR'sstrength. Such buyers are welcome. However,mainlanders regard Hong Kong property mainly as aninvestment vehicle. The government should closelymonitor the effects their activities may have on HongKong's property market. As developers have in recentyears focused on the luxury market, mid- andsmall-sized flats are in short supply. The governmentshould promptly find ways to tackle this situation.The government had been possessed with a fearuntil the site was auctioned. It believed that, if itchanged its land policy, property prices would plungewhen the economy turned down. It dreaded beingaccused of causing property prices to collapse. Theauction result should have freed it from this worry. Thehigh price the Ho Man Tin site has fetched showsHong Kong's property market remains largely in such astage that it is necessary to straighten supply anddemand out. The government should control landsupply, ascertain demand and put land for varioustypes of developments up for auction. Only by doing socan it redress the supply-demand imbalance.
Only by doing so can it prevent property pricesfrom roller-coastering. If the government sees that thesupply of every type of housing largely meets thedemand for it, it will not matter much whether itpursues any policy of helping citizens to buy their ownhomes.
Yesterday, after the land auction had ended,REDA (Real Estate Developers Association) vicechairman Stewart Leung criticised the government forits opaque pricing. We think his criticism makes sense.The first bid offered at a land auction used to be thereserve price. Obviously, that has not been the caserecently.
As land auctions are held in public, thegovernment need not have resorted to mysticism. Itshould either regard the first bid as acceptable as itused to do or simply announce an acceptable price inadvance. We do not see it would be unfair to or partialtowards any bidder in any way to increasetransparency by informing all developers of the reserveprice at the same time.
政府主動賣地成功勾地機制可以休矣
8 年來，政府首次主動推出土地拍賣，結果超逾市場預期的上限，何文田前山谷道邨地皮以高價成交。這次賣地成績，說明勾地政策已經無必要繼續存在，政府應該就市民住屋的實際需要，增加主動賣地，在這個前提下，是否定期或不定期賣地，並不重要，關鍵在主動賣地。政府進一步掌握土地供應主導權，理順實際供求關係，才可以使本港樓市走上平穩健康的發展之路。
首先值得注意的是發展商看好後市。土地由新鴻基地產以109 億元投得，平均呎價12,539 元，創下九龍區地價和拍賣呎價的最高紀錄。
賣地高價成交，首先最大得益者是庫房，今年政府土地收入肯定可觀。不過，前山谷道邨土地，以投資成本粗略計算，發展商他日要賣到每方呎2 萬元，才有較合理利潤。這樣的價錢，絕非本港一般受薪階層所能負擔，以近年本港樓市一些趨勢，相信除了本地買家之外，內地大豪客會是發展商瞄準的目標。本港能夠吸引內地人士來港買樓，正是本港優勢的體現，應予歡迎，不過，內地人士來港買樓，出發點主要是投資，他們對本港樓市生態會構成怎樣的影響，值得政府注意。近年發展商側重豪宅市場，中小型樓宇相對顯得供應不足，政府應該早為之謀。
在這次主動賣地之前，政府有一個心魔，深恐一旦調整土地政策，若適逢經濟景氣轉變，導致樓價顯著下跌，則政府就會蒙上推冧樓市的罪名。賣地結果應該可以掃除政府的疑慮。高價成交的結果，顯示本港樓市基調，仍然處於理順供求的階段，政府應該領會到主導土地供應權，掌握實際需求，推出興建各種類型樓宇的土地拍賣，才可以逐步理順樓市，扭轉供求失衡現象。只有這樣，樓市才不會暴升暴跌。設若政府使各類型樓宇供應達致基本平衡，是否有資助市民置業政策，就無關宏旨。
昨日賣地之後，地產建設商會副主席梁志堅批評政府定價欠缺透明度，我們認為有一定道理。以往政府賣地，發展商第一口承價往往就是底價，但是近期政府賣地，顯然並非如此處理。
公開拍賣地皮，政府無必要搞神秘主義，一是恢復以往慣常做法，視第一口價就是可接受價，另外，政府應該乾脆事先公布「可接受價」，增加透明度；讓發展商同時知道底價，我們看不到會影響賣地的公平和公正。明報英語網「雙語社評」
Glossary
bullish /'b ʊlIf/feeling confident and positive.record high If something is a record high, it is the highestever.
turn downWhen an economy turns down, it weakens.
It is worth notice that developers are bullish aboutthe market. Sun Hung Kai Properties got the site for$10.9 billion, or 12,539 a square foot. Both figures arerecord highs for Kowloon sites.
When a piece of land goes for a high price, thepublic purse gains most. This year the government canexpect to have considerable revenue from land premia.Judging from the cost of investment, the developer ofthe site must sell flats at $20,000 a square foot at leastbefore it can make a reasonable profit. Such a price isway beyond ordinary Hong Kong salary-earners'
means. It seems clear from certain trends that haveappeared in Hong Kong's property market that thedeveloper will target not only locals but also mainlandbig spenders. Mainlanders are keen on acquiringproperties in Hong Kong. That evidences the SAR'sstrength. Such buyers are welcome. However,mainlanders regard Hong Kong property mainly as aninvestment vehicle. The government should closelymonitor the effects their activities may have on HongKong's property market. As developers have in recentyears focused on the luxury market, mid- andsmall-sized flats are in short supply. The governmentshould promptly find ways to tackle this situation.The government had been possessed with a fearuntil the site was auctioned. It believed that, if itchanged its land policy, property prices would plungewhen the economy turned down. It dreaded beingaccused of causing property prices to collapse. Theauction result should have freed it from this worry. Thehigh price the Ho Man Tin site has fetched showsHong Kong's property market remains largely in such astage that it is necessary to straighten supply anddemand out. The government should control landsupply, ascertain demand and put land for varioustypes of developments up for auction. Only by doing socan it redress the supply-demand imbalance.
Only by doing so can it prevent property pricesfrom roller-coastering. If the government sees that thesupply of every type of housing largely meets thedemand for it, it will not matter much whether itpursues any policy of helping citizens to buy their ownhomes.
Yesterday, after the land auction had ended,REDA (Real Estate Developers Association) vicechairman Stewart Leung criticised the government forits opaque pricing. We think his criticism makes sense.The first bid offered at a land auction used to be thereserve price. Obviously, that has not been the caserecently.
As land auctions are held in public, thegovernment need not have resorted to mysticism. Itshould either regard the first bid as acceptable as itused to do or simply announce an acceptable price inadvance. We do not see it would be unfair to or partialtowards any bidder in any way to increasetransparency by informing all developers of the reserveprice at the same time.
政府主動賣地成功勾地機制可以休矣
8 年來，政府首次主動推出土地拍賣，結果超逾市場預期的上限，何文田前山谷道邨地皮以高價成交。這次賣地成績，說明勾地政策已經無必要繼續存在，政府應該就市民住屋的實際需要，增加主動賣地，在這個前提下，是否定期或不定期賣地，並不重要，關鍵在主動賣地。政府進一步掌握土地供應主導權，理順實際供求關係，才可以使本港樓市走上平穩健康的發展之路。
首先值得注意的是發展商看好後市。土地由新鴻基地產以109 億元投得，平均呎價12,539 元，創下九龍區地價和拍賣呎價的最高紀錄。
賣地高價成交，首先最大得益者是庫房，今年政府土地收入肯定可觀。不過，前山谷道邨土地，以投資成本粗略計算，發展商他日要賣到每方呎2 萬元，才有較合理利潤。這樣的價錢，絕非本港一般受薪階層所能負擔，以近年本港樓市一些趨勢，相信除了本地買家之外，內地大豪客會是發展商瞄準的目標。本港能夠吸引內地人士來港買樓，正是本港優勢的體現，應予歡迎，不過，內地人士來港買樓，出發點主要是投資，他們對本港樓市生態會構成怎樣的影響，值得政府注意。近年發展商側重豪宅市場，中小型樓宇相對顯得供應不足，政府應該早為之謀。
在這次主動賣地之前，政府有一個心魔，深恐一旦調整土地政策，若適逢經濟景氣轉變，導致樓價顯著下跌，則政府就會蒙上推冧樓市的罪名。賣地結果應該可以掃除政府的疑慮。高價成交的結果，顯示本港樓市基調，仍然處於理順供求的階段，政府應該領會到主導土地供應權，掌握實際需求，推出興建各種類型樓宇的土地拍賣，才可以逐步理順樓市，扭轉供求失衡現象。只有這樣，樓市才不會暴升暴跌。設若政府使各類型樓宇供應達致基本平衡，是否有資助市民置業政策，就無關宏旨。
昨日賣地之後，地產建設商會副主席梁志堅批評政府定價欠缺透明度，我們認為有一定道理。以往政府賣地，發展商第一口承價往往就是底價，但是近期政府賣地，顯然並非如此處理。
公開拍賣地皮，政府無必要搞神秘主義，一是恢復以往慣常做法，視第一口價就是可接受價，另外，政府應該乾脆事先公布「可接受價」，增加透明度；讓發展商同時知道底價，我們看不到會影響賣地的公平和公正。明報英語網「雙語社評」
Glossary
bullish /'b ʊlIf/feeling confident and positive.record high If something is a record high, it is the highestever.
turn downWhen an economy turns down, it weakens.
2010年6月9日星期三
暢所欲言 A-Z
Iraq 伊拉克伊拉克位於亞洲西南部、阿拉伯半島東北部，有悠久的歷史，是世界古代文明的發源地之一，她的「空中花園」被列為世界七大奇蹟之一。她石油資源十分豐富，是僅次於沙特的第二大石油儲藏國。2003 年3 月，美英以伊拉克支持恐怖主義和擁有大規模殺傷性武器為由發動伊拉克戰爭，導致薩達姆政權垮台。戰後的伊拉克滿目瘡痍，暴力襲擊事件不斷，局勢至今仍未能穩定下來。
相關字詞
Arabian Peninsula 阿拉伯半島
Hanging Gardens of Semiramis/Hanging Gardens of Babylon空中花園
terrorism 恐怖主義
Saddam Hussein 薩達姆
Istanbul 伊斯坦堡
歷史名城伊斯坦堡是土耳其最大城市和港口，位於黑海和馬爾馬拉海之間的博斯普魯斯海峽及金角灣橫貫其中，是世上唯一跨歐亞兩大陸的城市。它是歷史上連接中國與一些亞洲國家的著名「絲綢之路」的終點。作為古代三大帝國（拜占庭帝國、羅馬帝國和奧斯曼帝國）的政治經濟中心，伊斯坦堡遍佈令人驚奇的文化遺產，充滿遠古的輝煌歷史與神秘氣息，有博物館、教堂、宮殿、清真寺、市場及美麗的大自然風光。要看東西文化交融，伊斯坦堡是最合適的國家。
相關字詞
Byzantinism/Byzantism 拜占庭
The City on Seven Hills伊斯坦堡的別名
Constantinople 君士坦丁堡
megacity 大城市
IKEA 宜家傢俬
瑞典家居用品企業宜家傢俬創立於1943年， 創始人是瑞典人坎普拉德（IngvarKamprad），創立之初主要經營文具郵購、雜貨等業務，後轉向以家具為主。在不斷擴張下，產品範圍擴展到各種家居用品。它的產品全由宜家公司獨立設計，強調「簡約、自然、清新、設計精良」的獨特風格。它的經營理念是「提供種類繁多、美觀實用、百姓能負擔的家居用品」，因此它的產品定位是「低價、精美、耐用」。
相關字詞
Sweden瑞典simplicity簡約
ready-to-assemble furniture/knock-down furniture/flat pack furniture/self-assembly furniture 組合家具
運用以上任何一個字，撰寫一段約50 字的英語段落，連同個人資料（姓名及地址）寄柴灣嘉業街18 號明報工業中心A 座15 樓明報編輯部「通通識」，或電郵至english@mingpao.com，被抽中者即可獲贈由商務印書館送出《我敢讀英語話題詞——隨身聽讀版》一本，每期名額一個。
上期得獎者：Juile Fong
資料來源：《我敢讀英語話題詞—隨身聽讀版》，商務印書館出版
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。
相關字詞
Arabian Peninsula 阿拉伯半島
Hanging Gardens of Semiramis/Hanging Gardens of Babylon空中花園
terrorism 恐怖主義
Saddam Hussein 薩達姆
Istanbul 伊斯坦堡
歷史名城伊斯坦堡是土耳其最大城市和港口，位於黑海和馬爾馬拉海之間的博斯普魯斯海峽及金角灣橫貫其中，是世上唯一跨歐亞兩大陸的城市。它是歷史上連接中國與一些亞洲國家的著名「絲綢之路」的終點。作為古代三大帝國（拜占庭帝國、羅馬帝國和奧斯曼帝國）的政治經濟中心，伊斯坦堡遍佈令人驚奇的文化遺產，充滿遠古的輝煌歷史與神秘氣息，有博物館、教堂、宮殿、清真寺、市場及美麗的大自然風光。要看東西文化交融，伊斯坦堡是最合適的國家。
相關字詞
Byzantinism/Byzantism 拜占庭
The City on Seven Hills伊斯坦堡的別名
Constantinople 君士坦丁堡
megacity 大城市
IKEA 宜家傢俬
瑞典家居用品企業宜家傢俬創立於1943年， 創始人是瑞典人坎普拉德（IngvarKamprad），創立之初主要經營文具郵購、雜貨等業務，後轉向以家具為主。在不斷擴張下，產品範圍擴展到各種家居用品。它的產品全由宜家公司獨立設計，強調「簡約、自然、清新、設計精良」的獨特風格。它的經營理念是「提供種類繁多、美觀實用、百姓能負擔的家居用品」，因此它的產品定位是「低價、精美、耐用」。
相關字詞
Sweden瑞典simplicity簡約
ready-to-assemble furniture/knock-down furniture/flat pack furniture/self-assembly furniture 組合家具
運用以上任何一個字，撰寫一段約50 字的英語段落，連同個人資料（姓名及地址）寄柴灣嘉業街18 號明報工業中心A 座15 樓明報編輯部「通通識」，或電郵至english@mingpao.com，被抽中者即可獲贈由商務印書館送出《我敢讀英語話題詞——隨身聽讀版》一本，每期名額一個。
上期得獎者：Juile Fong
資料來源：《我敢讀英語話題詞—隨身聽讀版》，商務印書館出版
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。
on the ROAD
by Amanda Yu
Some of the places on inter-railing weregreat fun but not entirely eventful so I'mgoing to give you a brief idea of what theywere like and what we did:
Second stop: Amsterdam (荷蘭首都阿姆斯特丹), famed for its legal weed (大麻),red-light district and canals, was aninteresting city. As we dropped our bagsoff in our 20-bed mixed dorm, weimmediately joined a walking tour aroundthe city. Learning about the effects of theWar, Anne Frank's house in the city centreand its financial background, Amsterdam isa lot more than the "drugged" capitalperceived by a lot of people.
Third stop: Frankfurt ( 法蘭克福), theeconomic centre of Germany, is not ausual route for travellers. Despite themodern buildings, Frankfurt offered someclassic German cuisine of huge pork leg,sauerkraut ( 德國酸菜), apfelwein (applewine). (No they don't eatfrankfurters ( 法蘭克福腸)).
However, my biggest memoryof the place was the fact that Ispent four hours in an Irish pubwatching the Wimbledon'smen's finals (as I am literallyobsessed with tennis), beforebeing disappointed by Roddick's loss, andthus filled myself with some deliciousfood.
Fourth stop: After a night-long journeyto Berlin, we had to reside in the stationfor four hours in the middle of the nightbefore our connecting train to Prague (捷克首都布拉格) arrived. We would'veexplored the nightlife, but little did weknow that the station was situated in adodgy area, completed with a strip cluband a run-down building.
Prague was gorgeous-the cobbled(大卵石鋪成的) streets, old town square,astronomical clock, Charles Bridge (whichwas filled with tourists trying to absorb thebeauty of the historical city)... Anothergood thing about Prague is that beer wascheaper than water!
Writer's Profile
An unconventional boardingschool-educated gap year student who isabout to study at Oxford University.
Some of the places on inter-railing weregreat fun but not entirely eventful so I'mgoing to give you a brief idea of what theywere like and what we did:
Second stop: Amsterdam (荷蘭首都阿姆斯特丹), famed for its legal weed (大麻),red-light district and canals, was aninteresting city. As we dropped our bagsoff in our 20-bed mixed dorm, weimmediately joined a walking tour aroundthe city. Learning about the effects of theWar, Anne Frank's house in the city centreand its financial background, Amsterdam isa lot more than the "drugged" capitalperceived by a lot of people.
Third stop: Frankfurt ( 法蘭克福), theeconomic centre of Germany, is not ausual route for travellers. Despite themodern buildings, Frankfurt offered someclassic German cuisine of huge pork leg,sauerkraut ( 德國酸菜), apfelwein (applewine). (No they don't eatfrankfurters ( 法蘭克福腸)).
However, my biggest memoryof the place was the fact that Ispent four hours in an Irish pubwatching the Wimbledon'smen's finals (as I am literallyobsessed with tennis), beforebeing disappointed by Roddick's loss, andthus filled myself with some deliciousfood.
Fourth stop: After a night-long journeyto Berlin, we had to reside in the stationfor four hours in the middle of the nightbefore our connecting train to Prague (捷克首都布拉格) arrived. We would'veexplored the nightlife, but little did weknow that the station was situated in adodgy area, completed with a strip cluband a run-down building.
Prague was gorgeous-the cobbled(大卵石鋪成的) streets, old town square,astronomical clock, Charles Bridge (whichwas filled with tourists trying to absorb thebeauty of the historical city)... Anothergood thing about Prague is that beer wascheaper than water!
Writer's Profile
An unconventional boardingschool-educated gap year student who isabout to study at Oxford University.
rocket science 應怎譯？
讀者海菁來電郵說，翻譯文件時把rocket science 譯作「火箭科學」，但原文作者說譯錯，說是「尖端科學」才對，她感到困惑。
Rocket science 的本來意思當然是火箭科學，但在日常用語中，就常常變成一個譬喻，泛指一些尖端科學或者更高深學問。這種用法，大部分時間以否定句形式出現。例如：孫子要教會爺爺開啓電腦，無奈花了九牛二虎的勁，爺爺還沒有記住，這個時候， 孫子會說︰ 「Grandpa, it is not rocketscience. All you have to do is to enter thepassword here.」
我們可以把這句翻譯成︰ 「爺爺，這不是什麼高深學問，在這裏輸入密碼不就成了嗎？」
中文裏面也有類似用法，看到一些讀不懂的外語，有些人會說︰ 「看到這些雞腸就頭痛。」翻譯時萬萬不能把寫成︰ Thesechicken intestines are giving me aheadache， 儘管chicken intestines 就是雞腸。我們要將之引伸， 把它譯成： Thesesquiggles are giving me a headache，或者用更地道的說法：This is all Greek to me。
請海菁印證原文，看看上面的解釋是否恰當。
Rocket science 的本來意思當然是火箭科學，但在日常用語中，就常常變成一個譬喻，泛指一些尖端科學或者更高深學問。這種用法，大部分時間以否定句形式出現。例如：孫子要教會爺爺開啓電腦，無奈花了九牛二虎的勁，爺爺還沒有記住，這個時候， 孫子會說︰ 「Grandpa, it is not rocketscience. All you have to do is to enter thepassword here.」
我們可以把這句翻譯成︰ 「爺爺，這不是什麼高深學問，在這裏輸入密碼不就成了嗎？」
中文裏面也有類似用法，看到一些讀不懂的外語，有些人會說︰ 「看到這些雞腸就頭痛。」翻譯時萬萬不能把寫成︰ Thesechicken intestines are giving me aheadache， 儘管chicken intestines 就是雞腸。我們要將之引伸， 把它譯成： Thesesquiggles are giving me a headache，或者用更地道的說法：This is all Greek to me。
請海菁印證原文，看看上面的解釋是否恰當。
Johnny DEPP
text provided by the Biography Channel(now TV channel 222)
John Christopher "Johnny" Depp-actor,director and musician-was born on June 9,1963. Depp was withdrawn and a self-admittedoddball (古怪的人). "I made odd noises as a child,"he later revealed in an interview. "Just did weirdthings, like turn off light switches twice."
In 1983, at the age of 20, Johnny met andmarried 25-year-old makeup artist LoriAllison. A year later, Depp fell into acting when hiswife introduced him to her ex-boyfriend-actorNicolas Cage. Cage saw potential in Depp, andintroduced him to a Hollywood agent. Afterseveral small roles as a film extra, Depplanded his first legitimate movierole in the horror film A Nightmareon Elm Street (《猛鬼街》, 1984).
Depp started to study acting inearnest ( 認真地), the lessonspaid off in 1987 when hereplaced actor Jeff Yagher inthe role of undercover copTommy Hanson in the popularTV series 21 Jump Street(《龍虎少年隊》). The rolethrust (推) Depp into almostimmediate stardom.
John Christopher "Johnny" Depp-actor,director and musician-was born on June 9,1963. Depp was withdrawn and a self-admittedoddball (古怪的人). "I made odd noises as a child,"he later revealed in an interview. "Just did weirdthings, like turn off light switches twice."
In 1983, at the age of 20, Johnny met andmarried 25-year-old makeup artist LoriAllison. A year later, Depp fell into acting when hiswife introduced him to her ex-boyfriend-actorNicolas Cage. Cage saw potential in Depp, andintroduced him to a Hollywood agent. Afterseveral small roles as a film extra, Depplanded his first legitimate movierole in the horror film A Nightmareon Elm Street (《猛鬼街》, 1984).
Depp started to study acting inearnest ( 認真地), the lessonspaid off in 1987 when hereplaced actor Jeff Yagher inthe role of undercover copTommy Hanson in the popularTV series 21 Jump Street(《龍虎少年隊》). The rolethrust (推) Depp into almostimmediate stardom.
Package is bound to be vetoed
THE SAR government has tabled a bill aboutits 2012 constitutional reform package to theLegislative Council (Legco). Yesterday,Deputy Secretary General of the National People'sCongress Standing Committee Qiao Xiaoyangcommented on moderate democrats' demands. Asmatters stand, what has been done to persuadedemocrats to vote for it is far from adequate. Unlessthere is a miraculous breakthrough, it is very likely tobe thrown out as the 2005 package was.
About the six District Council (DC) functionalconstituency (FC) seats, Qiao said the present methodof having them filled by DC members picked by theirfellow DC members was more appropriate, therebyindirectly rejecting moderate democrats' demand thatthey should virtually be directly elected.
Last November, the government called FCelections out of keeping with the principle of universaland equal suffrage. After nearly seven months, Qiaomentioned the phrase and gave it a definition. Thingsseem to have progressed. However, we listenedcarefully and heard him say only that the kernel ofuniversal suffrage was to make sure that all wouldhave equal right of election, which ought to beuniversal and equal. Thereupon, he said emphatically,"As it is generally understood in the world, it ispermissible to impose reasonable restrictions on thisright by law. Countries have adopted different electoralsystems in the light of their respective situations toensure that their people will enjoy universal and equalsuffrage."
Qiao wants Hong Kong people to be prepared for"reasonable restrictions". Furthermore, he made itclear that Chief Executive (CE) candidates would benominated in a different way in 2017 than they wouldbe in 2012. The central government's attitude is suchthat the new nomination method is unlikely to be lessrestricted. There is also a potential danger. Thethreshold may be raised, and there may even bescreening designed to deprive some of their right tostand.
What is called "reasonable restrictions" will play akey part in Hong Kong's democratisation. Themainland's ideas of democratisation are vastly differentfrom Hong Kong's. As for "reasonable restrictions", thecentral government will make them strict, and HongKong people will strive for loose ones. In this process,"one country, two systems" will be put to a severe test.The pan-democratic camp is divided onconstitutional reform. The hawks orchestrated a"referendum", which was in fact a by-election. Thedoves vigorously sought to dialogue with the centralauthorities. They have come under enormous politicalpressure. They have been bitterly ridiculed andsneered at. At first they wanted the central governmentto pledge to allow Hong Kong people genuineuniversal suffrage. When they were certain that it wasuncompromising, they switched to making the 2012elections more democratic so that they could backdown. However, the central government has utterlyrefused to budge. None of their demands have beensatisfied. They have only gained an opportunity to talkwith central government officials. Nevertheless, thoseidle talks have sapped the doves of their political clout.At least some suspect they have betrayed democracy.How can the doves or other democrats justifythemselves to their supporters if they support the SARgovernment's package?
Yesterday the Democrats commented on thegovernment's bill and Qiao's speech. They declaredoutright they would not support the package if thingsremained as they were. It is totally understandable forthem to have taken this stance. Furthermore,yesterday, the 23 pan-democratic legislators declaredin a statement they and 38 nongovernmental bodiesjointly signed that they would vote as one on thepackage.
The lot of package now hangs in the balance.The only way to save it is for the central government toagree that the six DC FC legislators should benominated by their fellow DC members and returnedby all voters. If it does so, the SAR government maymanage to persuade the pan-democratic legislators tovote for it. The electoral method can be prescribed bylegislation. Unless this happens, the package DonaldTsang has put forward will meet the fate of the 2005package. It will be thrown out. That would drasticallychange Hong Kong's political ecology - deal a severeblow to Donald Tsang's authority, fuel internal strife,radicalise the political atmosphere and even harm theSAR's stability. Such a situation must not be dismissedas inconsequential. We do feel hopeless that we canonly hope for a miracle. However, that is the last strawto clutch at now. Whether we will see a miracledepends on what the central government has now inmind.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
明報社評 2010.06.08
除非奇蹟出現2012 政改方案難過關
港府就2012 政改方案，向立法會提交決議案，全國人大常委會副秘書長喬曉陽回應溫和民主派的訴求，按目前情况看來，推動民主派投票支持方案的動力，遠遠不足夠；到本月 23 日表決之前，若事態並無奇蹟般突破發展，政改方案繼2005 年之後，第二次被否決的可能性很大。
關於區議會功能組別的6 席，喬曉陽的回應認為現行由區議員互選的做法，較為恰當，間接否決了變相直選的要求。
去年11 月港府提出現行功能組別選舉，不符合普及平等原則，歷經接近7 個月，才從喬曉陽口中說出這5 個字和定義。事態好像有進展，但是仔細聆聽喬曉陽所說的普及而平等，只提到「普選的核心內容是保障人人享有選舉權，做到普及和平等」，他隨即話鋒一轉，側重點在根據國際現實，有關選舉權利是允許法律作「合理限制」，各國按自己的實際情况採用不同選舉制度，實現普及和平等的選舉權。
喬曉陽要港人有「合理限制」的心理準備。喬曉陽挑明2017 年選舉行政長官的提名程序，與2012 年的辦法不同，以中央的取態，這個「不同」，朝寬鬆方向發展的可能不大；而且潛藏一個重大風險：提高門檻，甚至篩選，剝奪一些人的參選權利。
未來本港民主化進程，所謂「合理限制」是關鍵。內地和本港在民主化的理念、價值，存在巨大差異，日後「合理限制」的爭持，具體會是中央要嚴加控制、港人則力爭寬鬆， 「一國兩制」在過程中將面對重大考驗。民主派因為這次政改而分裂，分成補選、公投的鷹派和爭取與中央對話的鴿派。鴿派頂着巨大政治壓力，受盡揶揄嘲諷，起初主要訴求是中央確認真普選，後來確知中央取態強硬之後，退而求其次，要求確實增加2012年民主成分，作為下台階，中央還是寸步不讓，在此情况下，鴿派的訴求，全部落空，只得與中央溝通的機會，但是這些「無米粥」的溝通，卻在剝蝕鴿派的政治能量，起碼，部分人正在質疑他們有否出賣民主派。所以民主派、特別是鴿派若支持港府的方案，將如何向支持者交代？
昨日，民主黨就港府決議案和喬曉陽的回應，即時表示若情况無改變，不會支持政改方案。他們的取態，完全可以理解。另外，23 名民主派議員與38 個民間團體的聯署聲明，他們的投票取態已經綑綁在一起。
政改方案命懸一線，現在僅剩一個活門，就是未來兩周，中央改變6 席區議員功能組別的選舉辦法，由區議員提名，全體選民選舉，爭取民主派支持方案，然後在本地立法階段解決問題，否則行政長官曾蔭權提出的政改方案，只有遭到再一次被否決的命運。這個結果會使香港的政治生態丕變：沉重打擊曾蔭權的管治威信、本港內耗勢必加劇、政治氛圍激化，甚至衝擊整體穩定，實在不能等閒視之。政改期望奇蹟出現，十分無奈，不過，確實只剩下奇蹟了，而奇蹟會否出現，存乎中央一念之間。
Glossary
kernel /'k ?:n(?)l/the central, most important part of an idea or asubject.
sap /sap/To sap a person of something is gradually todestroy it in him.
hang in the balancebe uncertain.
About the six District Council (DC) functionalconstituency (FC) seats, Qiao said the present methodof having them filled by DC members picked by theirfellow DC members was more appropriate, therebyindirectly rejecting moderate democrats' demand thatthey should virtually be directly elected.
Last November, the government called FCelections out of keeping with the principle of universaland equal suffrage. After nearly seven months, Qiaomentioned the phrase and gave it a definition. Thingsseem to have progressed. However, we listenedcarefully and heard him say only that the kernel ofuniversal suffrage was to make sure that all wouldhave equal right of election, which ought to beuniversal and equal. Thereupon, he said emphatically,"As it is generally understood in the world, it ispermissible to impose reasonable restrictions on thisright by law. Countries have adopted different electoralsystems in the light of their respective situations toensure that their people will enjoy universal and equalsuffrage."
Qiao wants Hong Kong people to be prepared for"reasonable restrictions". Furthermore, he made itclear that Chief Executive (CE) candidates would benominated in a different way in 2017 than they wouldbe in 2012. The central government's attitude is suchthat the new nomination method is unlikely to be lessrestricted. There is also a potential danger. Thethreshold may be raised, and there may even bescreening designed to deprive some of their right tostand.
What is called "reasonable restrictions" will play akey part in Hong Kong's democratisation. Themainland's ideas of democratisation are vastly differentfrom Hong Kong's. As for "reasonable restrictions", thecentral government will make them strict, and HongKong people will strive for loose ones. In this process,"one country, two systems" will be put to a severe test.The pan-democratic camp is divided onconstitutional reform. The hawks orchestrated a"referendum", which was in fact a by-election. Thedoves vigorously sought to dialogue with the centralauthorities. They have come under enormous politicalpressure. They have been bitterly ridiculed andsneered at. At first they wanted the central governmentto pledge to allow Hong Kong people genuineuniversal suffrage. When they were certain that it wasuncompromising, they switched to making the 2012elections more democratic so that they could backdown. However, the central government has utterlyrefused to budge. None of their demands have beensatisfied. They have only gained an opportunity to talkwith central government officials. Nevertheless, thoseidle talks have sapped the doves of their political clout.At least some suspect they have betrayed democracy.How can the doves or other democrats justifythemselves to their supporters if they support the SARgovernment's package?
Yesterday the Democrats commented on thegovernment's bill and Qiao's speech. They declaredoutright they would not support the package if thingsremained as they were. It is totally understandable forthem to have taken this stance. Furthermore,yesterday, the 23 pan-democratic legislators declaredin a statement they and 38 nongovernmental bodiesjointly signed that they would vote as one on thepackage.
The lot of package now hangs in the balance.The only way to save it is for the central government toagree that the six DC FC legislators should benominated by their fellow DC members and returnedby all voters. If it does so, the SAR government maymanage to persuade the pan-democratic legislators tovote for it. The electoral method can be prescribed bylegislation. Unless this happens, the package DonaldTsang has put forward will meet the fate of the 2005package. It will be thrown out. That would drasticallychange Hong Kong's political ecology - deal a severeblow to Donald Tsang's authority, fuel internal strife,radicalise the political atmosphere and even harm theSAR's stability. Such a situation must not be dismissedas inconsequential. We do feel hopeless that we canonly hope for a miracle. However, that is the last strawto clutch at now. Whether we will see a miracledepends on what the central government has now inmind.
明報英語網「雙語社評」english.mingpao.com/critic.htm
明報社評 2010.06.08
除非奇蹟出現2012 政改方案難過關
港府就2012 政改方案，向立法會提交決議案，全國人大常委會副秘書長喬曉陽回應溫和民主派的訴求，按目前情况看來，推動民主派投票支持方案的動力，遠遠不足夠；到本月 23 日表決之前，若事態並無奇蹟般突破發展，政改方案繼2005 年之後，第二次被否決的可能性很大。
關於區議會功能組別的6 席，喬曉陽的回應認為現行由區議員互選的做法，較為恰當，間接否決了變相直選的要求。
去年11 月港府提出現行功能組別選舉，不符合普及平等原則，歷經接近7 個月，才從喬曉陽口中說出這5 個字和定義。事態好像有進展，但是仔細聆聽喬曉陽所說的普及而平等，只提到「普選的核心內容是保障人人享有選舉權，做到普及和平等」，他隨即話鋒一轉，側重點在根據國際現實，有關選舉權利是允許法律作「合理限制」，各國按自己的實際情况採用不同選舉制度，實現普及和平等的選舉權。
喬曉陽要港人有「合理限制」的心理準備。喬曉陽挑明2017 年選舉行政長官的提名程序，與2012 年的辦法不同，以中央的取態，這個「不同」，朝寬鬆方向發展的可能不大；而且潛藏一個重大風險：提高門檻，甚至篩選，剝奪一些人的參選權利。
未來本港民主化進程，所謂「合理限制」是關鍵。內地和本港在民主化的理念、價值，存在巨大差異，日後「合理限制」的爭持，具體會是中央要嚴加控制、港人則力爭寬鬆， 「一國兩制」在過程中將面對重大考驗。民主派因為這次政改而分裂，分成補選、公投的鷹派和爭取與中央對話的鴿派。鴿派頂着巨大政治壓力，受盡揶揄嘲諷，起初主要訴求是中央確認真普選，後來確知中央取態強硬之後，退而求其次，要求確實增加2012年民主成分，作為下台階，中央還是寸步不讓，在此情况下，鴿派的訴求，全部落空，只得與中央溝通的機會，但是這些「無米粥」的溝通，卻在剝蝕鴿派的政治能量，起碼，部分人正在質疑他們有否出賣民主派。所以民主派、特別是鴿派若支持港府的方案，將如何向支持者交代？
昨日，民主黨就港府決議案和喬曉陽的回應，即時表示若情况無改變，不會支持政改方案。他們的取態，完全可以理解。另外，23 名民主派議員與38 個民間團體的聯署聲明，他們的投票取態已經綑綁在一起。
政改方案命懸一線，現在僅剩一個活門，就是未來兩周，中央改變6 席區議員功能組別的選舉辦法，由區議員提名，全體選民選舉，爭取民主派支持方案，然後在本地立法階段解決問題，否則行政長官曾蔭權提出的政改方案，只有遭到再一次被否決的命運。這個結果會使香港的政治生態丕變：沉重打擊曾蔭權的管治威信、本港內耗勢必加劇、政治氛圍激化，甚至衝擊整體穩定，實在不能等閒視之。政改期望奇蹟出現，十分無奈，不過，確實只剩下奇蹟了，而奇蹟會否出現，存乎中央一念之間。
Glossary
kernel /'k ?:n(?)l/the central, most important part of an idea or asubject.
sap /sap/To sap a person of something is gradually todestroy it in him.
hang in the balancebe uncertain.
Stumbling blocks to a deal
The die is cast, as the date has been set for lawmakers to vote on the 2012 electoral reform package. On June 23, will the pan-democrats veto this opportunity for change at all costs?
The prospect of the proposal being passed isn't particularly encouraging, in view of the negative feedback to National People's Congress Standing Committee deputy secretary-general Qiao Xiaoyang's answer to the moderates' demands.
But would the Democratic Party and its pan-democratic peers react differently if they bother to study Qiao's comments with greater care? Fingers are crossed.
Qiao had touched on all their concerns, including the definition of universal suffrage, future of functional constituencies, election of legislators from district councils, and nomination of chief executive candidates when the chief executive is elected by universal suffrage.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Qiao's personal understanding - or that of the central government - of universal suffrage is rather generic. Its core content is to protect the equal voting right of every citizen. But he also observed it is a global practice for places to adopt different electoral systems that also suit their actual situations.
Perhaps the more cynical ones in the pan-democrat camp find the generic definition far from satisfactory. But this was the first time Beijing elaborated on the definition of universal suffrage that the Basic Law stops short of defining.
In the opinion of some, this is already a half-step concession by the central government, if not a full one. But issues as abstract as definition should never be a stumbling block for breakthroughs.
Clearly, the pan-democratic moderates are particularly hung up on substances. What are they? Functional constituencies are one of them. Although Qiao said community views are split on functional constituencies and more discussions will be necessary, it would be misleading to say functional constituencies aren't going to change.
They're bound to change to conform with universal suffrage, according to Qiao's understanding.
In order to comply with the definition of equal voting rights as described by Qiao, it would be hard to imagine how the current arrangement of some having more votes than others wouldn't change.
If those standing in the way of a deal say the definition of universal suffrage and Qiao's open remarks in relation to functional constituencies will usher in tighter control, one may also argue it will indeed lead to a more democratic outcome in 2017 and 2020.
Another point to note is the election of the chief executive. What did Qiao say in this regard? He said the future arrangement under which the nominating committee nominates chief executive candidates will conform with democratic procedures. He also emphasized this future arrangement and the existing system are entirely different. Maybe the pan-democrats who dislike any threshold should mind the words "entirely different.'" Doesn't this pave the way for a more liberal approach for nominating the chief executive? Certainly, it's proper for Hong Kong to be careful in dealing with this, for it would be a nightmare for society if "Mad Dog" Raymond Wong Yuk-man were to be elected chief executive.
The prospect of the proposal being passed isn't particularly encouraging, in view of the negative feedback to National People's Congress Standing Committee deputy secretary-general Qiao Xiaoyang's answer to the moderates' demands.
But would the Democratic Party and its pan-democratic peers react differently if they bother to study Qiao's comments with greater care? Fingers are crossed.
Qiao had touched on all their concerns, including the definition of universal suffrage, future of functional constituencies, election of legislators from district councils, and nomination of chief executive candidates when the chief executive is elected by universal suffrage.
英文虎報 Central Station | By Mary Ma
Qiao's personal understanding - or that of the central government - of universal suffrage is rather generic. Its core content is to protect the equal voting right of every citizen. But he also observed it is a global practice for places to adopt different electoral systems that also suit their actual situations.
Perhaps the more cynical ones in the pan-democrat camp find the generic definition far from satisfactory. But this was the first time Beijing elaborated on the definition of universal suffrage that the Basic Law stops short of defining.
In the opinion of some, this is already a half-step concession by the central government, if not a full one. But issues as abstract as definition should never be a stumbling block for breakthroughs.
Clearly, the pan-democratic moderates are particularly hung up on substances. What are they? Functional constituencies are one of them. Although Qiao said community views are split on functional constituencies and more discussions will be necessary, it would be misleading to say functional constituencies aren't going to change.
They're bound to change to conform with universal suffrage, according to Qiao's understanding.
In order to comply with the definition of equal voting rights as described by Qiao, it would be hard to imagine how the current arrangement of some having more votes than others wouldn't change.
If those standing in the way of a deal say the definition of universal suffrage and Qiao's open remarks in relation to functional constituencies will usher in tighter control, one may also argue it will indeed lead to a more democratic outcome in 2017 and 2020.
Another point to note is the election of the chief executive. What did Qiao say in this regard? He said the future arrangement under which the nominating committee nominates chief executive candidates will conform with democratic procedures. He also emphasized this future arrangement and the existing system are entirely different. Maybe the pan-democrats who dislike any threshold should mind the words "entirely different.'" Doesn't this pave the way for a more liberal approach for nominating the chief executive? Certainly, it's proper for Hong Kong to be careful in dealing with this, for it would be a nightmare for society if "Mad Dog" Raymond Wong Yuk-man were to be elected chief executive.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
