【外國月亮不是特別圓】

投入國際連結工作好一段時間，有時覺得大家也會期望「外國月亮總是特別圓」，但其實西方國家政治人物支持香港，從來不是理所當然，當中亦會涉及不少商業利益考慮和國際壓力，以及部份左傾政客仍會不知何故地，對中國共產政權抱有良好幻想，這種情況在歐洲較為明顯。

德國左翼黨的國會議員，竟在國會發言表示「理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」固然讓人大跌眼鏡，尤其是中共從根本地就是循從威權主義和國家資本主義的極右政黨。

有時對於國際政客不理解香港，也是有點無奈，但我們香港作為國際大都會，對於世界各國的抗爭運動，又何嘗不是缺乏足夠理解，只盼在抗爭持續的情況下，香港人能夠繼續努力，讓世界理解我們，與香港同行。

早前睇一份德國國會內嘅辦論，有位Die Linke嘅議員話要支持中共，因為大家都是左翼共產主義支持者，不用分得那麼細。我見內容有所偏頗就寫左篇文。中文翻譯見下文。
Recently, a MP from Die Linke made some remarks about HK, and say they should support CCP as they are friend of Coummunism. I find the claims rather inaccurate hence I wrote this article to provide some rebuttals. Please scroll down for the English translation.

Article in German: https://www.google.com/…/Hongkong-Krise-Pekings-Regierung-b…

近日德國國會內, 一位Die Linke的國會議員Stefan Liebich對香港的事作出評價，這些評價實在令人難以茍同。

Liebich指「Die Linke理應支持我們在北京的共產朋友」。但中國共產黨除了名字內有「共產」兩個字外，其實際行動與共產理念差天共地，實在不是Liebich想像中共產主義的好朋友。

中國共產黨是一個極權，除了擴張政治與經濟勢力外，中國共產黨什麼都不會理會。不論是無產階級的死活，或者是工人階級，對於中國共產黨來說只是擴張實力的工具，隨時可以為了經濟或政治利益犧牲或捨棄。 中國共產黨實質上是由一群搜刮民脂民膏致富而滿肚腸肥的黨員領導。中國共產黨甚至對自己的人民進行全天候的監控，打壓、拘捕異見人士。

由此可見，中國共產黨本質上是一個極右政黨，而非Liebich以為的左翼。 北京政府不是以共產理念管治中華人民共和國，反而是以物質主義操縱國民。中國背後並沒有一套穩固的價值觀支撐，唯有金錢才是中國人和中國政府信仰的理念。中國的任何行動，從來都不是由價值推動，而總是由金錢和利益推動。

中國共產黨只是一個「掛羊頭賣狗肉」的「共產」黨，它相當擅長扮演共產主義的支持者，與Liebeich想像中「馬克思主義的的同路人」相差甚遠。我們應該要小心分辨真正的共產主義者與打著共產主義旗號行惡的政權之間的分別。

Leibich亦在發言時提到八國聯軍與相關歷史，指「香港被英國以軍事手段從中國手中搶去。撇除對於中國的批評，我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」。但現實上，清朝是被當時被視為外族的滿洲人統治。當時的「中國」與今天我們認知的中華人民共和國並不是同一個國家。所以，Leibich所指的「香港被英國不公義的殖民」，其實嚴格來說是鴉片戰爭後，香港的管治權從滿洲人手中交到英國人手中。

清朝末期發生申亥革命，中華民國成立。及後因國共內戰，中華民國政府輾轉於1949年12月撤退至臺灣。如果按照Leibich的邏輯，香港主權理應是移交予中華民國政府，而非中華人民共和國。

另外，香港人本來擁有聯合國1960年在《給予殖民地國家和人民獨立宣言》中賦予非自治領土人民自決前途的權利。但因為中國強烈反對港澳被定義為殖民地，而應為「被英國和葡萄牙當局佔領的中國領土的一部分」。中國代表單方面宣稱港澳的地位，都屬中國主權範圍內，甚至指：「聯合國並沒有權討論這些問題。」最後才令香港再名單中被除名，失去前途自決的權利。

而觀乎而今情況，即使香港主權移交予中國後，不公義不但沒有消失，反而更加明顯與嚴重。Leibeich在發言時指「撇除對於中國的批評，我們樂見不公義的殖民主義完結」，我很希望，他不是指他將無視數以百萬計的少數民族關押在在教育營當中、六四屠城死去的學生、香港早前被實彈近距離射中的兩位男孩、被24小時監控的中國人、捨生取義爭取人權的香港人，而去支持中國共產黨只因其聲稱自己是「共產主義者」。

人權自由是人類文明近百年來的基石，中國共產黨的行為，與絕大部分我們珍視的政治價值並不相容。在任何情況下，我們都不可能支持一個獨裁的殺人政權。

Recently, in the German Bundestag, Stefan Liebich made a few remarks regarding Hong Kong. Mr. Liebeich says his party Der Linke should support their communist friends in Beijing. “Logisch, dass Der Linke Liebich seinen Kommunistenfreunden in Peking wieder den Rücken stärkt.(It is logical that Die Linke Liebich should again support his communist friends in Beijing.)” In my point of view, the Chinese Communist Party is just a party named itself as the “Communist”, what it does in China or in the world is in no way communistic.

PRC is a dictatorship that only takes the expansion of its economic and political power into regard, workers or its people are at its disposal whenever it sees fit. The “Communist” party cares neither about the people, nor the grassroots, it only cares about the economic benefit it gains from its business activities inside and outside PRC. The party leaders are all sitting in their offices with their pockets full of what they gain from exploiting the Chinese workers.
They carry mass surveillance 24/7 throughout China, arrests and detain descendants. Frankly speaking, the CCP is rather right than left.

The Peking Government is not running Communism, but materialism. The only thing the Chinese and the Chinese government worship is the dollar sign, nothing else. They do not take any values or ideology into account. The people are not motivated by values or beliefs, but by the economic benefits they see.

The CCP is not a communist party as Mr. Leibich conceived it is. The CCP is very good at creating the illusion that it represents the Marxist ideas. We should be very careful in examining the differences between those who claim to be communists and those who are communists.

Mr. Leibich also made reference to the history of the Eight-Nation Alliance in the late Qing Dynasty, saying that“ Auch Hongkong ist durch die britische Armee militärisch China abgepresst worden.(Hong Kong has been militarily squeezed out of China by the British army.)” and “Bei aller notwendigen Kritik an der chinesischen KP sagen ich: Es ist gut, dass dieses koloniale Unrecht zu Ende ist. (Despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party, I say: It is good that this colonial injustice has come to an end.)”

It is worth clarifying that during that time of History, China was ruled by the Manchus, who were considered as foreigners at the time. China at the time was not the Republic of China we know today. Therefore, Hong Kong was not military squeezed out of PRC but was being colonized by the British in substitution of the Manchus at that time.

Historically speaking, the successor of the Qing Dynasty is the Republic of China, which later was relocated to Taiwan due to the Civil War between 1927 and 1949. And Mr. Leibich’s claim that it is good that colonial injustice has come to an end is inaccurate, too. In this case, Hong Kong, ought to be returned to Taiwan (the Republic of China) but not China (People’s Republic of China), to end the colonial injustice.

What is more, Hong Kongers were supposed to be able to exercise our right to self-determination and really being able to be free from colonialism. Yet Hong Kong was actually removed from the U.N. list of Non-Self-Governing Territories upon PRC’s request.

And clearly, under PRC’s rule, injustice is more than just apparent in Hong Kong currently. Mr. Leibich’s remarks of “despite all the necessary criticism of the Chinese Communist Party”, I truly hope that he is not suggesting that one would neglect the millions of ethnic minorities being detained in re-education camps, those who died in the JuneForth Masaccare, the two young Hong Kong boys who were shot by live rounds, the Chinese who were placed under surveillance 24/7 and all my fellow Hong Konger who are fighting for fundamental rights with their lives, but support the CCP’s action because it claims to be a communist party.

I see of no reason, why anyone should support a dictatorship that would brutally murder its own people. CCP is totally going against what most political ideologies in the world stand for, and I do believe we can all agree on the fundamental rights of all members of the human family that ought to be respected as that is the foundations of human civilization.

【點解中文先有「富不及三代」】

表面係話「分散投資」，實際係識避XYZ
（《金融時報》話超人啲老友走唔甩）

尋日英國《Financial Times》報導，香港法國巴黎銀行（BNP Paribas）法律部門主管，因為响私人FB恥笑某堆人剩係識响商場抄襲香港示威者話”...Monkey see, monkey do 好「被離職」。暗示係繼國泰之後，又一「顏色恐怖」例證。今日（9月28號）《金融時報》亞洲區兩大財經評論記者（唔係財經演員），聯手報導李嘉誠如何由香港”Superman” 變到被指為Hong Kong “cockroach king”。報導表面係講解原因，亦讚超人有遠見地晨早「分散投資」（去廢國）。但係隱隱地覺得，好似講解中國人「富不及三代」抄家歷史教訓咁嘅？

1981年國際財經雜誌《Far East Economic Review》，將李嘉誠變身成為”Hong Kong’s Superman”，從此「李超人」呢個朵無中國人唔識。而邊個同點解近期有人叫李生做「曱甴王」，相信大家都知，唔洗點長氣反轉再反轉翻譯。不過《金融時報》就加多腳，話香港去到咁嘅情況，臨近國慶之時 “Beijing...is keen for any opportunity to redirect the rage of Hong Kongers, who have been squeezed economically, away from the government and towards one of the city’s sons” （好希望乘乘機機，將從來都被經濟壓榨嘅香港人怒火，由政府A字膊咁卸落個去呢啲城市之子嗰度）。咁點解偏偏要揀超人呢？

因為其它嗰堆細粒啲嘅富豪，對住香港人團火就好似豆腐咁囉（vulnerable to anger），而李生係象徵人物同”above them all”。事實上，好多香港企業同公司已經被北京（唔知係咁適當武力）猛烈衝擊（fierce attack）。繼國泰匯豐之後，法國巴黎銀行同PwC都伏已中。而香港好多大粒佬（tycoons）都係靠地產發達，結果咪「被指控」（accused）令合理價錢住屋短缺嘅罪人。雖然北京將條怒火（ire）卸去超人呢個香港精英度，不過睇黎李生比佢啲老友（peers）醒好多，晨早看穿了（have seen these event years ago）。醒在一早分散投資响外國，近期仲重注廢國（多謝晒）。報導話，就係咁，財富咪可以傳落子子孫孫度（passed time heirs），唔洗被迫焗賣比國家（forces to sell to Beijing ）。

“Chinese guys, including LI Ka-Shing, know that businesspeople have historically （歷史上）not been protected（從不受保障） in China”，咁新地（Sun Hung Kai）同四叔（Henderson Land）呢啲，近十年絕少投海外嗰啲，典算呢？”...can’t start now and expect the same result. It’s a bit too late.” 即係So99y，太遲了，唯一辦法就係賣比國企（Chinese’s state-owner companies）吧。（依家係咪去到要捐，然後感覺穩陣啲？）

#2019版士改鬥地主

原文傳送門：
Hong Kong’s ‘Superman’ Li Ka-shing comes under fire
https://on.ft.com/2lNyRFB

[美國文化觀察]

川普前幾天說, 以後的移民要在移民美國時, 就要會說英文. 經濟學人這篇文章講的挺好: 其實移民移居美國後, 早晚都會說英文的.

在我身上其實也應證了這說法. 旅居美國十幾年, 雖然平常有跟此地的台灣同胞保持互動, 但因為身處在美語環境, 也為了生存下去, 所以我漸漸地習慣說英文, 聽英文歌, 看美國電視, 看原文書. 我也很清楚地意識到, 自己的母語(中文)能力在退化中. 所以我前幾年開始接英翻中的case, 而兩年前也開始藉著寫中文個股分析與開部落格來彌補這問題. 很多時候不是我故意在秀英文, 而是我真的不知道該用甚麼中文字來表達意思了, 或是我覺得用英文能夠更傳神地表達我的想法.

"Rather than refusing to learn English, today’s immigrants actually abandon their first language much more readily than previous generations. German, the language spoken by the president’s ancestors, is a case in point. Germans arrived in America in big waves in the middle of the 19th century. Generations later, they were still speaking German at home; a small number were even monolingual in German despite being born in America. Only with America’s entry into the first world war did German-speakers drop their suddenly unpopular language.

Today the typical pattern is that the arriving generation speaks little English, or learns it imperfectly; the first children born in America are bilingual, but English-dominant, and their children hardly speak the heritage language. This is as true of Hispanics as it is of speakers of smaller languages—and all without a lecture from the White House."

以下是全文:
DONALD TRUMP’s young administration is adept at one particular manoeuvre. Whenever the president is having a terrible time in the press, for some embarrassing statement, interview or imbroglio, the White House announces a far-reaching policy designed to stoke up his nationalist base while infuriating his opponents. In February it was the proposed ban on visitors from seven mainly Muslim countries. Last month it was the announcement on Twitter that he would not let transgender soldiers serve in the military.

In each case, the new policy tends to hurt people who can be portrayed as threatening outsiders to ordinary Americans who work hard and pay their taxes. Yesterday’s announcement to back a months-old plan to overhaul America’s immigration rules falls in the same category. If implemented, it would reward applicants with sought-after job skills who already speak English, at the expense of low-skilled workers without language skills.

This may seem perfectly sensible: after all, skilled immigrants are a good thing. But as an ongoing shortage of farm workers in California shows, unskilled immigrants are just as crucial. Equally, it is a good thing if immigrants speak English. But they need not speak it before arrival: as it is impossible to participate fully in American life without speaking English, the incentive to learn it quickly is overwhelming.

The administration’s emphasis on English skills therefore harks back to an old myth that the linguistic make-up of America, which has been an English-dominant country for a long time, is changing: that the status of English is somehow threatened, especially by Spanish, but more generally by the notion that English is no longer needed in the economy.

The myth goes something like this: today’s immigrants want to come to America to isolate themselves into communities that do not speak English. American policy tacitly encourages this by not being tough enough in requiring English. In the past, immigrants happily learned English quickly; “my grandpa came here from the old country but he refused to speak his old language; he insisted on getting by in his broken English until he was fluent.” But today’s immigrants no longer do so, as multiculturalism has replaced the melting pot.
All of this is wrong. America began as a thin band of English colonies clinging to the eastern coast, vastly outnumbered by speakers of other languages. The foreign-born percentage of the population peaked not last year—the administration likes to talk of “unprecedented” numbers—but in 1890, when the share of foreign-born residents was at an all-time high of 14.8%. This proportion has risen again after declining in the mid-20th century (it stood at 12.9% in the 2010 census). America today has multilingual big cities with their voting instructions in Korean, Chinese and Russian.

Historically, this is the norm rather than the exception: the years from 1925 to 1965, when immigration was almost completely cut off, were unusual. But those born from the 1940s to the 1960s became used to the low numbers of foreign-born residents, regarding this state as normal. That in turn supported a belief that America has always naturally belonged completely to English.
For most of its history, America was precisely the “polyglot boardinghouse” Teddy Roosevelt once worried it would become. That history has turned out very well not just for America, but for English—the most successful language in the history of the world. Along with American power, English has spread around the globe. At home, wave after wave after wave of immigrants to America have not only learned English but forgotten the languages their parents brought with them.

Rather than refusing to learn English, today’s immigrants actually abandon their first language much more readily than previous generations. German, the language spoken by the president’s ancestors, is a case in point. Germans arrived in America in big waves in the middle of the 19th century. Generations later, they were still speaking German at home; a small number were even monolingual in German despite being born in America. Only with America’s entry into the first world war did German-speakers drop their suddenly unpopular language.

Today the typical pattern is that the arriving generation speaks little English, or learns it imperfectly; the first children born in America are bilingual, but English-dominant, and their children hardly speak the heritage language. This is as true of Hispanics as it is of speakers of smaller languages—and all without a lecture from the White House.