Tv stretches中文班- 分享啲我平時睇電視會做嘅stretches. Kill 2 birds with one stone!

https://youtu.be/PUHEty_VpYw

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

各位，生成器也許已沒有用了。選管會一天就收到4500封電郵。看來，大家炸他電郵還是有點用的。

以下乃沈大師言為「內部AO提供範本」。的確是官話文章，請先仔細閱讀，才選擇是否發出電郵吧。

你還有5小時。

请广传，好人一生平安。

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

Shortage is virus’s first attack. It triggers fear, wakes up selfishness, and jeopardizes trust in government. Facing mask shortage, an online community of developers worked with Taiwan government to ensure masks are distributed promptly and fairly. The resulting turnaround set up Taiwan to become one of the most successful countries in combatting coronavirus.

English Transcript: daodu.tech/?p=8046

科技島讀邀請台灣數位政委唐鳳錄音，討論台灣的線上口罩預購系統，是如何在多方單位合作下開發出來的。
為了向國外朋友介紹，本集以英文錄音，歡迎分享給更多國外朋友。
中文逐字稿：daodu.tech/?p=8039

#Taiwan #E-Mask #Audrey Tang

Lets kill two birds with one stone! While you watch TV at night you can do these fairly easy and relaxing stretches! Hope you Enjoy!

The other day I went into a bunch of typical American Chinese takeout restaurants as an ordinary but kinda clueless white guy and ordered food in fluent Chinese (Mandarin, Cantonese, and Fuzhounese). Most American Chinese takeout restaurants like this are run by people from China’s Fujian province, so it was fun for them to hear me speak their native but fairly rare language of Fuzhounese!

It was a really fun prank and social experiment to see Chinese people’s reactions — both the waiters and the other patrons in these NYC Chinatown restaurants were totally shocked! Thanks everyone for supporting me on my language learning journey!!!

Want to learn fluent Chinese like me?
Sign up for my free newsletter and discover how you can pick up Chinese quickly using my weird but effective method: http://bit.ly/37gTpLc

Check out my Chinese course:
http://bit.ly/3tgq4d8

Subscribe to my channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLNoXf8gq6vhwsrYp-l0J-Q?sub_confirmation=1
Follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/xiaomanyc/
Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/xiaomanyc/

If you guys like the music in my videos, you can check out all the AMAZING music Epidemic Sound has at my affiliate link here: http://share.epidemicsound.com/xiaomanyc