[時事英文] 言論自由與冠狀病毒
　
在自由的社會中，每位公民都能依照個人的自由意志來行使權利。言論自由讓每位公民都能監督政府，要求政府改變不公不義的法規與政策。
　
In a free society, all citizens must be able to pursue their own paths, set their own goals, and think for themselves. The freedom of speech safeguards these rights as it enables us to challenge and change government regulations and laws we find oppressive and unjust.
　
歷史表明，在缺乏監督機制的情況下，政府的絕對權力將導致絕對的腐化。即便有些言論不合我們的心意，但禁止人們發聲不僅限制了言論自由，也剝奪了人們聽取他人意見的權利。禁止言論，並不能禁絕思想。唯有透過對話與協商，才能達成共識，而使社會進步。
　
History has shown that without the corrective mechanism of free speech, governments would consolidate their powers without regard for the rights and freedom of those whom they ought to serve. To deny people of free speech is a double wrong, because doing so would also deprive people of the right to listen, even though some speech would undoubtedly make us feel uncomfortable. Banning certain speech would not result in the elimination of ideas. It is through engagement and negotiation that we can reach consensus and progress as a society.
　
每個人都應享有批評政府的權利，而無需擔心遭受迫害。這也是當今公民得以贏得諸多權利的原因。言論自由是值得全體人類努力爭取的基本人權。
　
All people ought to have the right to criticize their government without fear of persecution, because it is how we have won the rights we have today. The freedom of speech is a fundamental human right and it’s worth fighting to protect.
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
《紐約時報》報導：
　
Trevor Noah, the host of “The Daily Show,” has won praise on the Chinese internet for his searing criticism of the Trump administration’s mishandling of the coronavirus pandemic. So has Jerry Kowal, an American who makes Chinese-language videos chronicling the dire situation in New York.
　
1. win praise 贏得讚賞
2. searing criticism 猛烈抨擊
3. mishandle (v.) 對⋯⋯處理不當
4. chronicle 記錄
5. a dire situation 可怕的情況
　
因為猛烈抨擊川普政府對新冠病毒疫情的應對不當，《每日秀》主持人特雷弗・諾亞（編按：中國網民給他取了一個暱稱叫崔娃）在中國的網路上備受讚賞。受到追捧的還有郭傑瑞，作為美國人，他製作的中文影片記錄了紐約的可怕情形。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
China’s response to the virus has its own sharp-eyed critics at home, and they have found a vastly different reception. One resident of the virus-struck city of Wuhan who writes under the name Fang Fang documented despair, misery and everyday life in an online diary, and has endured withering attacks on social media. Three citizen journalists who posted videos from Wuhan in the first weeks of the outbreak disappeared and are widely believed to be in government custody.
　
6. response to 回應
7. sharp-eyed 眼尖的；目光敏銳的
8. a vastly different reception 截然不同的對待
9. virus-struck 病毒侵襲
10. document (v.) 記錄
11. endure attacks 忍受攻擊
12. withering 令人難堪的；嚴厲的
13. be in government custody 被政府監禁（或拘留）
　
中國對疫情的應對在國內也引發了尖銳的批評，但這些批評者卻遭到了截然不同的對待。在病毒肆虐的武漢，一位筆名方方的居民用網路日記記錄了人們的絕望、痛苦和日常生活，結果她在社群媒體上遭到了猛烈的攻擊。在疫情暴發的前幾週，三位在武漢發布影片的公民記者失蹤了，人們普遍認為政府把他們抓走了。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
The pandemic unfolded dramatically differently in China from the way it has in the rest of the world — at least, if one believes state-run Chinese media. Chinese news outlets used words like “purgatory” and “apocalypse” to describe the tragic hospital scenes in Italy and Spain. They have run photos of British and American medical workers wearing garbage bags as protective gear. A lot of the same miseries happened in China, but those reports were called “rumors” and censored.
　
14. pandemic 全球性流行病
15. unfold 展開；顯露
16. state-run 國營；國有
17. news outlet 新聞出處
18. purgatory 煉獄
19. apocalypse 末日（天啟）
　
在中國，這場大流行的展現方式與世界其他地方截然不同——至少，如果你相信中國官方媒體的話。中國的新聞媒體用「煉獄」和「末日」這樣的詞來描述義大利和西班牙醫院裡的悲慘情形。它們還登載了英國和美國的醫務人員把垃圾袋當防護服的照片。中國也有很多類似的悲劇，但那些報導被稱為「謠言」而遭到刪除。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
The death of Li Wenliang, the whistle-blowing doctor in Wuhan, on Feb. 6 galvanized many Chinese people into demanding freedom of speech. Online sentiment became much more skeptical, and many young people openly challenged the party’s message.
　
20. a whistleblower 吹哨者
21. galvanize somebody into… 激起；使震驚
22. freedom of speech 言論自由
23. online sentiment 網路輿情
24. skeptical 存疑的；持懷疑態度的
25. openly challenge 公開挑戰（或質疑）
　
２月６日，武漢吹哨醫生李文亮的去世激起了許多中國人對言論自由的要求。網路上的懷疑情緒更多，許多年輕人公開質疑黨的訊息。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Then the United States and other countries bungled their own responses, and China’s propaganda machine saw an opportunity. Using the West’s transparency and free flow of information, state media outlets chronicled how badly others have managed the crisis. Their message: Those countries should copy China’s model. For good measure, the propaganda machine revved up its attacks on anybody who dared to question the government’s handling of the pandemic. For many people in China, the push is working. Wielding a mix of lies and partial truths, some young people are waging online attacks against individuals and countries that contradict their belief in China’s superior response.
　
26. bungle 弄糟；（笨手笨腳地）把……搞砸
27. propaganda machine 宣傳機器
28. see an opportunity 看見機會
29. manage a crisis
30. transparency 透明度
31. free flow of information 資訊的自由流動
32. chronicle (v.) 記錄
33. rev up sb/sth（使）活躍；（使）積極
34. dare to question 敢於質疑
　
後來，當美國和其它國家搞砸了各自的疫情應對時，中國的宣傳機器看到了機會。中國官媒利用西方媒體的透明度和資訊的自由流動，記錄了其它國家在應對危機時的糟糕表現。他們的訊息是：這些國家應該效仿中國模式。此外，宣傳機器還加大力度，攻擊那些敢質疑中國政府處理疫情方式的人。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
Many of the same people praising Mr. Noah have been slinging arrows and rocks at Fang Fang, whose real name is Wang Fang, for telling the truth about China. Her diary was moderate and personal, and a place where many of us turned for comfort during the darkest hours of China’s epidemic. But after Harper Collins announced plans to publish it in English, tens of thousands of online users descended on her Weibo account, saying she was a traitor for supporting the enemy’s narrative.
　
35. sling arrows and rocks 口誅筆伐
36. tell the truth about 說了關於⋯⋯的實話
37. moderate 溫和的
38. turn to comfort 尋求慰藉
39. the darkest hours 最黑暗的時刻
40. descend on 突襲；向⋯⋯湧來
41. a traitor 叛徒；賣國賊
　
在這些讚美諾亞的人中，有很多卻對真名為汪芳的方方口誅筆伐，就因為她說了關於中國的實話。她的日記是溫和而私人的，在中國疫情蔓延最黑暗的時刻，我們中的許多人都在這裡尋求安慰。但在哈珀柯林斯出版社宣布計劃出版該日記的英文版後，成千上萬的網民攻擊了方方的微博帳號，說她在支持敵人的敘事，是個賣國賊。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
The online backlash has been so severe, Fang Fang wrote on Weibo, that it reminds her of the Cultural Revolution, the decade of political violence and chaos that she saw as a child. The only comfort, she wrote, is that “this type of Cultural Revolution is only conducted in cyberspace.”
　
42. online backlash 網路上的強烈反對
43. the Cultural Revolution 文化大革命
44. remind sb of sth 使⋯⋯想起⋯⋯
45. political violence and chaos 政治暴力與混亂
　
方方在微博上寫道，這種網路叫罵是如此嚴重，令她回想起兒時目睹文化大革命的政治暴力和混亂的十年。唯一的寬慰是「這種文革只在網路空間進行著」，她寫道。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
May everyone in the world have the freedom to criticize their governments without fear. May we, no matter what our opinions are, speak out to safeguard human rights.
　
願世人都能享有言論自由，批評政府時無須擔驚受怕。即便意見相左，都能為捍衛人權而奮鬥。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
《紐約時報》完整報導：https://nyti.ms/35aI90l
　
圖片出處：https://bit.ly/2y6iN7X
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
時事英文講義：https://bit.ly/2XmRYXc
　
時事英文大全：http://bit.ly/2WtAqop
　
如何使用「時事英文」：https://bit.ly/3a9rr38
　
＃疫情英文

【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】

***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated，將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像：以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文（https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/）翻譯成英文，鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演，在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***

中文精簡版本：https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/

Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.

In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.

The possibility of realizing legislative majority

Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.

The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?

Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.

Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.

Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority

To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.

While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.

Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.

Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.

Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP

What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.

Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.

The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.

Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution

Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.

Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.

The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.

All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.

https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw

【短評微軟政策】
這禮拜微軟發表了新一波的環境政策，宣示要2030達成淨零碳排，然後2050要把從微軟創建之初迄今的碳排移除，跟碳中和的概念稍稍有區別，有點被動與主動的不同。

微軟本身在2012年的時候就已經透過再生能源購買與碳權交易達成自身營運碳中和，並推行內部碳價(稅)政策做總量管制與獲取資金。2025將會持續往百分百再生能源、全電動車以及全綠建築標章邁進。

攤開政策，微軟這次厲害的地方在於他們將會連同供應商與產品價值鏈的部分一起把碳排都移除(Scope3)，這佔了他們將近80%的碳足跡，例如產品面上將會透過與電力公司簽訂24小時潔淨能源協定供應雲端資料處理，也會與供應商協調減量或連同供應商的分努力下去，別於目前廠商們多只宣示做到(Scope1&2)零排放。總的來說~~~ 不容易...夭壽難...

PS. 快速了解碳排範疇
Scope1是燃料使用(EX: 柴油發電機)
Scope2是購買電力的碳排
Scope 3是產品碳足跡

下面僅列出一些基本原則，大家順便看看一流企業的公關文字，然後不得不說，這些文字與政策都比台灣總統大選討論的層次高太多了：

1️⃣ 紮根於科學和數學：我們將繼續以最好的可用科學和最準確的數學為基礎。
2️⃣ 對我們的碳足跡負責：我們將對所有排放負責，因此到2030年，我們可以將排放量減少一半以上，並清除比我們每年排放的更多的碳達成2050移除以往碳排的目標。
3️⃣ 投資新的減排和移除技術：我們將在新的氣候創新基金中投入10億美元的自有資金，以加快碳減排和清除技術的發展，這將幫助我們和世界成為負碳排。
4️⃣ 提升全球客戶的能力：也許最重要的是，我們將開發和部署數字技術，以幫助我們的供應商和客戶減少碳足跡。
5️⃣ 確保有效的透明度：我們將根據權威的全球報告標準，發布年度《企業永續報告》(CSR Report)，使我們的進度保持透明。
6️⃣在有關碳的公共政策議題上發聲：我們將支持新的公共政策倡議，以加快碳減排和清除機會。
7️⃣ 編入我們的員工：我們體認到，員工將是我們推動創新的最大資產，我們將創造新的機會，使他們能夠為我們的努力做出貢獻。

中文介紹可參考
https://technews.tw/2020/01/17/microsoft-wants-to-capture-all-of-the-carbon-dioxide-its-ever-emitted/

今天的社會要對有爭議的問題達成共識，似乎愈來愈困難了。共識，即眾人一致的意見，英文是consensus。「共識政治」，英文是consensus politics，把consensus用作形容詞。作為名詞，consensus的用法見以下例句： 一、The consensus of the ...