小編快報
《柏林脈動》(The Berlin Pulse) 今天出刊了。這是德國一年一度的外交及國際關係專刊。作者群包括學者、智庫專家、政府官員。
這一期談歐洲問題的作者有波蘭外長、Moldova 總理、德國國防部長等等等。
今年《脈動》特別做了中國專題,作者有五位,分別是:
中國的全國人大外事委員會副主任委員傅瑩、日本眾議會議員Minora Kiuchi、巴黎的中國問題專家Francois Godement、曾任澳洲駐華大使,現任外交及貿易秘書長的Frances Adamson,以及台灣的龍應台。
德國編輯在文末放了一個德國的民意調查圖表,提問是:「面對中國,你認為德國應該更強力保護自己的政治利益,即使犧牲經濟利益?」
答案:贊成 76%
反對 19%
小編把龍應台文章翻譯成中文,跟讀者分享。英文原文附在後面。如果嫌我翻譯得不好,那那那,那表示你英文很好,你就看英文吧......
——————————————————————
兩千三百萬人在獨木舟上
——為什麼歐洲應該關切台灣的未來
反對黨公布2020總統候選人名單的那一天,我在台北和知識圈的朋友們午餐。那悲觀的,用問句來表達自己的悲觀,譬如,「你覺得台灣還有多少年?」那樂觀的,用黑色幽默來表達樂觀,譬如,「感謝老天。香港讓他們太忙了,沒時間管台灣。」
跟德國一樣,台灣對中國大陸和香港的貿易順差,在2018年是831億美元。百分之四十一的對外貿易針對中國,中國大陸市場對台灣的重要不言而喻。然而,隨著近年來台灣海峽兩岸的關係緊張,反對黨(國民黨) 憂慮市場的優勢無法持續,而執政黨(民進黨) 則選擇強化選民對北京的不信任來抵制中國的影響力。執政黨最近提出的國安新法可能將任何被認定為為中國宣傳者入罪。
和歐洲一樣,台灣人對中國的感受也是複雜的。 當中國代表的是活躍的經濟機會時,很多台灣人就容易所謂「親中」,當中國代表的是壓迫和可能的入侵時,很多台灣人就是所謂的「反中」。問題是,中國兩者兼備。後果就是,台灣內部的分歧遠遠超過了僅只是政治和經濟的層面。
如果你知道台灣是如何一路走來的,你會覺得它今天變成一個民主社會真是一個不得了的成就。沒有革命,一黨獨裁四十年的國民黨,不管你說它是自願還是被迫,放下了政權,分享權力。沒有流血,昔日牢裡的政治犯變成今日的立法者和政治領袖。1987年解嚴以後,政權的交替基本上公平而有序地進行了三十年。
台灣安靜地進行了三十年的民主,時間幾乎和它的國際孤立一樣長。美國不承認台灣的國家地位,但是,就如同當年對於德國,美國也扮演了安全守護者的角色。令人不安的是,在美國宣布要把軍售台灣常態化的同時,中國也宣布,它在台灣海峽及其領空,要把軍艦和戰機的演習常態化。
所以台灣民主的威脅其實是雙重的。比較明顯的是中國的威脅,這個威脅,往往超出台灣本身的控制能力。一個不那麼明顯的威脅,卻是內部自製的。台灣的政治人物和政黨熱切拿這個威脅做為政治資本,刺激集體恐懼來強化部落式的愛國主義。這種操作的成功,對台灣的民主制度和機構本身,是個真實的危險。
國際上那些純粹為了攻擊中國而故意把台灣捧在手心讚美的人,其實讓我坐立不安。一代又一代的台灣人為民主付出了代價,很大的代價,而得到今天的成果。這個成果,太珍貴了,不可以變成別人或別國為了自己的利益而拿來玩弄的籌碼或棋子。
德國的歷史是特殊的。德國的人民親身目睹了,如果不戒慎恐懼地去維護,一個開放合理的社會制度是如何容易地瓦解,一夜之間可以被獨裁取代。經歷了二戰,又擺脫了共產黨的歷史爭取到自由,德國可能比很多其他國家更容易理解台灣人的困境和追求。道德勇氣的來源往往是歷史的痛苦。身為歐盟的重要成員,德國有責任為世界的和平做出最大的努力,發揮最大的影響力。
但是,歐洲憑什麼一定要關心台灣呢?
首先,如果沒有台灣模式,全世界大概就都得接受一種說法,就是,儒家文化和民主制度是無法相容的,而所謂「中國模式」就是唯一邏輯、不可避免的現代中國。台灣的存在證明了一件事:未必如此。
第二,台灣本身的努力值得世界的尊敬。沒錯,如果中國是一艘航空母艦,那麼台灣只不過是一葉孤零零的獨木舟。可是在這個獨木舟上有兩千三百萬人正在追求一種有自由、有尊嚴的生活方式。如果台灣是歐盟的一個成員,就人口論,台灣就是二十八個成員國(英國脫歐後二十七國)中第七大國,比波蘭稍小,但比荷蘭和比利時大。以經濟購買力來看,台灣更是名列全球第二十二。所以,歐洲可以想像剝奪波蘭人或者荷蘭人對生活方式和政治體制的選擇權利嗎?
23 Million People on a Canoe
—Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future
Lung Yingtai
On the day when the opposition party announced its presidential candidate for the 2020 election, I was sitting at a lunch table in Taipei listening to my intellectual friends uttering their concerns about the future of Taiwan. The pessimists phrased their pessimism in the form of questions such as “How many years do you think Taiwan has left?” The optimists expressed their optimism with dark humour, “Thank God they will be too busy with Hong Kong and the US for a while.”
Like Germany, Taiwan operates a trade surplus with mainland China and Hong Kong, amounting to $83.1 billion in 2018. With 41% of Taiwan’s exports going to China, Taipei’s economy depends on trade with the mainland. However, given the increasing tension across the Taiwan Strait, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT) in particular has been worrying whether Taiwan will be able to sustain these figures. The ruling Democratic Progressive Party, on the other hand, is capitalizing on voters’ intense distrust of Beijing, stepping up measures to “contain” China’s influence. Taipei recently drafted a national security law that would make it a punishable offense to spread “political propaganda” for China.
As in Europe, Taiwanese feel highly ambivalent about mainland China: When China signifies economic opportunities, most Taiwanese are 23 Million People on a Canoe Why Europe should care about Taiwan’s future “pro-China”; when China represents oppression and potential invasion, most Taiwanese are “anti-China”. The problem is that China resembles both. The result is a deep division among Taiwanese extending far beyond the political and economic spheres.
Given the circumstances under which Taiwan emerged and evolved, its evolution into an authentic democracy represents an extraordinary achievement. It was without a revolution that the KMT, which had ruled Taiwan for more than 40 years, put an end to martial law and, whether convinced or compelled to act, opened the country’s political system to sharing power. Without bloodshed, dissidents who had once sat in jails became legislators and political leaders. Since the lifting of martial law 1987, power has changed hands fairly and orderly, following the results of each election.
Taiwan has been a quiet democracy for more than thirty years, nearly as long as the four decades during which it has been isolated by the international community. The US does not formally recognize Taiwan but, as with Germany, acts as the country’s security guarantor. While Washington has indicated that arms sales to Taiwan will become more of a routine, China has devised a routine of its own by holding long-range combat drills and ordering its fighter jets to cross the maritime line.
However, the threat to Taiwanese democracy is twofold. The obvious one comes from China, and to a large extent lies beyond Taipei’s control. The less obvious threat is home-made, as the looming China threat tempts domestic politicians to mobilize the population’s collective fear to foment a tribal nationalism. Their success would pose a real danger to Taiwan’s democratic institutions.
Those who applaud Taiwanese democracy for the sole purpose of criticizing China make me nervous. Generations of Taiwanese fought and ultimately achieved a democracy – it is simply too precious for other people’s agendas, internal or external.
Germany has a unique history: its people have experienced first-hand how easily democratic institutions may fall apart when not meticulously guarded. Having received democracy as a gift following World War II and struggled to regain their freedom from Communist rule, Germans are in a unique position to understand both the predicament as well as the aspirations of the Taiwanese. Moral courage often comes from past sufferings. As a leading EU member state, Germany has a responsibility to maximize its own efforts as well as to influence others’ efforts for world peace.
But why should the world care about the future of Taiwan? First of all, save the Taiwan model, the world might have to accept the claim that democracy and Confucianism are incompatible, and that a communist China presents the only logical and inevitable path to modernity. Secondly, Taiwan deserves respect on its own merits. True, if China were an aircraft carrier, Taiwan would be a lone canoe. But standing on this canoe are 23 million people aspiring for a life with liberty and dignity. If it were an EU member, Taiwan would be the 7th largest of the Union’s 28 member-states (27 after Brexit), smaller than Poland but larger than the Netherlands or Belgium, with a developed economy ranking 22nd in the world by purchasing power parity. Do we really want to return to a world in which it is imaginable that countries such as Poland or the Netherlands should be deprived of their autonomy to determine their own way of life and political system?
The Berlin Pulse 2019
龍應台專文:https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/3_Koerber_TheBerlinPulse_YingTai.pdf
全本:https://www.koerber-stiftung.de/fileadmin/user_upload/koerber-stiftung/redaktion/the-berlin-pulse/pdf/2019/TheBerlinPulse_2019_FINAL.pdf
orderly中文 在 容海恩 Eunice Yung Facebook 的最佳貼文
葉太是前高官,熟知政府運作和昔日議會的資料及紀錄。可惜政府於是次修例的解說過程中,並沒有人像葉太般能清晰、有理有節地指出泛民的謬誤,在此感謝葉太的敢言,讓市民看清真相。
#香港幸好有葉太
Dear friends, an English summary of the key points I made in the LegCo adjournment debate is set out below:
1.Rebutting the pan democrats’ objections to the government’s fugitive offenders amendment legislation, I pointed out that arising from two criminal cases (the Telford Gardens murder case and the Cheung Tse-keung kidnap case) in which the suspects fled to mainland China after committing the offences, Martin Lee Chu-ming, then a Member of the Legislator, moved a motion in LegCo on 9 December 1998 urging the government to discuss and conclude an agreement with Beijing on rendition arrangements between mainland China and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction”. The wording is as follows:
“That this Council deeply regrets that, while the cases involving the kidnapping of two business tycoons in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and the murder of five persons in the
Telford Gardens, which are being handled in the Mainland in accordance with the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, have caused widespread concern among Hong Kong people, the SAR Government has not tried its utmost to seek the return of those who are suspected of violating the law in the SAR by the Basic Law; this Council also urges the SAR Government to expeditiously discuss and conclude an agree-ment with the Central People’s Government, on the basis of internationally agreed principles, on rendition arrangements between the Mainland and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction.”
2.All the legislators from the Democratic Parry supported this motion. Who made an about-turn in opposing the government’s amendment legislation
to facilitate the rendition of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China? Who have been lying to the people of Hong Kong?
3.As Secretary for Security, I had, on 3 December 198, reported to LegCo’s Security Panel the government’s plan to conclude an agreement on the rendition of fugitive offenders with mainland China. Then Chief Secretary Anson Chan undertook to expedite action to reach an agreement with the mainland.
4. All decisions about rendition are ultimately made by the courts. Two recent examples: a high court in New Zealand rejected an extradition request from China to extradite an ethnic Korean New Zealand citizen suspected of murdering a sex worker in Shanghai on the ground that the court did not believe that he would have access to “fair trial” in China. A court in Scotland rejected an extradition request from Taiwan to extradite a British national accused of killing a newspaper agent by drink driving on the ground that the court did not believe that he would
have non-discriminatory treatment in prison.
5. The Financial Action Task Force established under the auspices of G20 had described the lack of rendition arrangement and agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China as a “significant deficit” in Hong Kong’s fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.
6. On the question of pressure on judges to kowtow to Beijing, why should judges fear pressure? They are appointed by the Chief Executive with approval by the Legislative Council. They are well trained; well paid and have security of tenure. They are only accountable for the judgments they made which would go down in the common law as part of the
jurisprudence on extradition. They are not accountable to Beijing.
7. On the need to formally “withdraw” the fugitive offenders bill, I pointet out that then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hua used wording similar to that of the current administration in announcing the postponement of the second reading debate of the national security bill on 7 July 2003. On 2 October 2003, then Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee wrote to House Committee Chairperson Selina Chow to explain that to give effect to Mr.Tung’s announcement of “withdrawal” of the bill on 5 September, he would not give notice under LegCo Rules of Procedure to resume second reading debate of the bill within the current term of the Legislative Council.
8. Thus it is clear that the current administration followed the same wording and procedure as in 2003. Clear indication that second reading debate
would not be resumed in the rest of the legislative term is effective “withdrawal”. Insistence on withdrawal is merely a ploy adopted by the opposition to dial up pressure on the administration to undermine its ability to govern.
9.The orderly demonstrations carried out recently by large numbers of of Hong Kong people fully testify to the abundance of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. But I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence after the mass protest on 9 June, the violent attack on the Police on 12 June, the repeated actions taken by unruly protesters to lay siege to the Police Headquarters, the Immigration Tower, the Revenue Tower and the Justice Place. These protesters have become urban “bandits”, disrupting social order and damaging Hong Kong’s overseas reputation as a safe city. The attacks on Police Headquarters, with a view to undermining Police morale, are particularly vicious. These protesters have committed multiple offences and should be brought to justice.
-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\
(中文版本發言全文)
【誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議?讓市民看清真相】
多謝代理主席女士,我發言是支持張華峰議員的議案,我完全同意張議員議案指出,政府現時當務之急是盡快恢復社會秩序,穩定營商環境,採取及時的應對措施 ,令市民可以恢復正常的生活。我亦很高興藉這個休會辯論的機會,向市民講真話,講清講楚,告訴市民那些人一直講大話,瞞騙市民!可惜尹兆堅議員不在席,我想告訴所有的泛民議員,究竟誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議,以及刑事司法互助安排呢?正是李柱銘議員!
1998年香港出現了兩宗轟動社會的刑事案件,第一宗是德福花園的「五屍命案」,風水師李育輝殺了五名女士後逃到內地,被逮捕及處決;第二宗是「張子強案」,張子強涉嫌綁架和囤積軍火,同樣逃到內地,然後被逮捕及處決。當時立法會非常震驚,要求特區政府盡快與內地商討刑事司法互助安排,例如1998年12月3 日,我擔任保安局局長,向立法會保安事務委員會交代,要與內地訂明有關安排,並與今日的特區政府一樣,承諾所有安排必須符合「雙重犯罪」原則、指定罪行、不得再移交第三國家的保障、死刑及政治罪行或受政治迫害一律豁免移交的保障,就此,根據保安事務委員會會議文件編號CB(2)748/98-99(02) 第十段有清楚說明:「鑑於公眾對近日張子強和李育輝等案件的關注,亦正如政務司司長所承諾,政府會盡力加快工作,以期早日與內地就此重要事項達成協議。」當時政務司司長就是陳方安生女士。
接下來,李柱銘先生亦在1998年12月9 日動議議案。李議員動議的議案內容如下:「由於兩名富商在香港特別行政區(“特 區”)被綁架案及德福花園五屍命案均在內地法院以《中華人民共和國刑法》審理,引起港人極大關注,但特區政府卻未盡全力爭取將在特區境內涉嫌違法的人士,交還特區法院審理,以捍衛《基本法 》賦予特區的司法管轄權,對此,本會深表遺憾;同時,本會促請特區政府以國際社會公認的原則為基礎,盡快就中港兩地移交疑犯的安排與中央人民政 府進行商討及達成協議,恢復港人對特區司法管轄權的信心。」
因此,我真的要問問尹兆堅議員,究竟是誰人表演「四川變臉」?李柱銘去美國告狀時,有沒有告訴美國人他是提出修例的第一人?他當年不斷敦促特區政府和內地達成協議!我則堂堂正正光明正大地多次到北京開會,商討移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排,會議後每次都是光明磊落向本會匯報。為何對這些事實你們全部失憶?是誰欺騙市民?拍攝影片誤導市民,宣傳香港人如何肉隨砧板上,隨時像動物一樣被移送內地!
事實上,所有案例都證明移交逃犯是需要經過法庭冗長而複雜的程序。最近新西蘭的高等法院否決移交一名韓裔新西蘭公民,該人士涉嫌在上海謀殺一名性工作者,而這案件已由2011年審理至今。蘇格蘭的法庭也拒絕了台灣一個引渡要求,有關一名英國人在台灣醉酒駕駛,撞死一名派報紙的職員。由此可見,最終決定權在法庭手上,並非行政長官一人決定。亦有指法官備受壓力,試問法官受高深教育,良好的司法訓練,身受納稅人供給不錯的報酬,他們當然必須承擔責任。我們每個人都有壓力,法官承擔責任,幫助香港人解決法律問題,是他們應有的責任。因此,代理主席,我認為應該就此向市民講清講楚,是誰人不斷向市民講大話?誤導市民!將這條應該做的法例,抹黑成一條所謂「送中」的惡法!
亦看看國際社會怎麼說,Financial Action Task Force, 即G20集團轄下的「財務行動特別組織」,素來批評香港與內地沒有移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排。過往,他們直指這是一個significant deficit ,即一個「重大缺憾」。近來,可能因為要和應香港反對修例的聲音,則改為 legal shortcoming,即一個「法律上的缺憾」。不過,我們仍然需要完善這些法律,所以政府不撤回是正確的。那些要求行政會議成員辭職的人,全部皆作出不公平的指責。這條例本身完全沒有錯,但大家都同意,政府在宣傳和解釋這條條例方面,乃至為市民反駁種種謊言的工作,做得嚴重不足。
說到撤回,我們看看當年政府處理23條的時候所用的語言。2003年7月7日,時任行政長官董建華先生發表聲明:「我即時召開行政會議特別會議。經過詳細商討後,基於自由黨的立場,我們決定將條例草案押後恢復二讀,並在未來一段時間加強向市民解釋修訂案內容。」其實這個方針與現時政府無異,一樣是將其押後並且加強解釋,並沒有表示撤回。再看看我的接任人李少光局長向內務委員會主席周梁淑怡女士致函的內容,信函的日期是2003年10月2日,李局長寫道:「為在程序上落實前文所提及,行政長官會同行政會議的決定,我現確認我不擬根據《議事規則》第 54(5)條發出預告,以在本屆立法會任期內恢復該草案的二讀辯論。草案因此會根據《議事規則》第 11(4)條及《立法會條例》(第 542 章)第 9(4)條,在本屆立法會任期完結時失效。」即是和現在特區政府的說法一樣,繼續開放式的諮詢去解釋這條條例,沒有時間表,不發出預告恢復二讀,任由這條例「自然死亡」,實質上等同不會再推動修例,等同撤回。
為什麼當時沒有要求撤回的爭論呢?我認為今天有人強烈要求撤回,根本別有用心!為了找理由不斷衝擊政府部門,除了衝擊警察總部之外,又衝擊入境事務大樓、稅務大樓,今天亦有超過100人衝擊律政中心。他們的目的到底與這條條例有什麼關係呢?其實只不過是用「撤回」作一個藉口,不斷擾亂香港秩序,甚至令香港在國際社會失色,令許多希望到香港做生意或旅遊的人,感到香港是一個不安全的城市,他們的用心實在非常惡毒!「撤回」是一個要求律政司下台的藉口,假如律政司下台,他們就會要求整個特區政府領導班子總辭,所有支持過修訂條例的行政會議成員、立法會議員,全部都應該總辭,不如讓泛民和黃之鋒接手特區政府,這就是他們的最終目的。代理主席,所以我一定要藉這個休會辯論的機會,向市民講清楚這背後的陰謀。
當然,我要強烈譴責近日這些示威人士衝擊警察總部。過去兩星期有大部分市民和平遊行,充分彰顯香港擁有高度自由,以及人權得到高度保障,這是我們香港人皆引以為榮的核心價值。不過,在這些和平的示威遊行之後,有些不法之徒聚眾衝擊政府部門,特別是衝擊警隊,他們的用心非常惡毒!他們知道警隊是維護香港治安和秩序最重要的支柱,他們就故意不斷打擊警隊的士氣,甚至侵犯他們的私隱,包括網上「起底」和 網上欺凌。昨晚市民在愛丁堡廣場和平集會後,有眾多穿黑衣的人士走入地鐵站,他們最後走到軍器廠街再次包圍警察總部。我見到一名正在上班的警員,他沒有戴口罩,光明正大地上班,但竟然被人追打!不過,他無畏無懼,直視這些示威者。其實這些人已經觸犯多項刑事罪行,包括襲警、非法集會、刑事毀壞,警方應該將他們繩之於法,不可以因為你「聲大」你「人多」就可以獲得特赦。
代理主席,就此我感到特別震驚,為何一位前政務司司長能夠說出特赦及釋放違法人士,此等嚴重衝擊法治的言論呢?我們一位前同事余黎青萍女士,她以英語寫了一篇非常感人的聲明,在我們前政務官的圈子裏流傳。她表示 disappointed by 這位前同事陳方安生的所作所為!我亦 disappointed by 民主黨的變臉與謊言!李柱銘到美國告狀,有否告知美國人,他是第一人支持與內地簽訂移交逃犯協議,和達至司法互助?這些真相應該告知市民。
代理主席,這些近日的示威者已經成為一股流寇,不斷去衝擊各個政府部門。我懷疑他們真正目的就是要拖垮政府,傷害我們整體市民的利益。因此,我懇請各位善良的市民,看清楚真相,不要支持這些破壞香港繁榮安定的壞分子,不要參加他們的集會,亦希望各位父母約束您們的子女,並解說給他們知道,和平示威沒有問題,但一遇到出現亂象,應該帶他們離開現場,以免他們身陷險境。
orderly中文 在 orderly - Yahoo奇摩字典搜尋結果 的相關結果
adj. 有序的; 整潔的;守秩序的; 井然有序的. n. 護理員;勤務兵. 牛津中文字典 ... ... <看更多>
orderly中文 在 orderly - 英中– Linguee词典 的相關結果
大量翻译例句关于"orderly" – 英中词典以及8百万条中文译文例句搜索。 ... everything clear and orderly (idiom); neat and tidy—. ... <看更多>
orderly中文 在 orderly中文(繁體)翻譯:劍橋詞典 的相關結果
orderly 翻譯:醫院的工人, (醫院的)護工,勤務員, 士兵, 勤務兵, 整齊的;井然有序的。了解更多。 ... <看更多>