如果可以，我希望大家在接受資訊時，盡量去看原文，並且做出判斷。

蘋果新聞網今早出了一篇獨家，大意是，該報電郵詢問歐盟藥管局（EMA）關於免疫橋接的看法，EMA也回覆給蘋果。

這是一個重要的資訊，所以我仔細看了這篇報導內容。蘋果也很盡責，將歐盟的回覆原文貼在報導下方，讓讀者自行參照。

但參照之後，不得不說，蘋果這篇報導在下標時，似有稍嫌誤導的問題。

蘋果的標題：考慮對新疫苗「開綠燈」。

這個標題讀起來，是歐盟對於免疫橋接給了一個相當正面的回覆。

但仔細看EMA的回覆全文：

"EMA is currently considering the scenarios in which an immune-bridging approach could be acceptable for approval of second generation vaccines. The topic has been discussed with the World Health Organisation (WHO), COVAX and international regulators.

Please note that the aspects of clinical trial design that could support a demonstration of adequate immune response are under consideration. EMA will communicate further when new information becomes available."

1. 歐盟強調的是「尚在討論」，並沒有暗示會「開綠燈」。

2. 第一段第一句用的是could，這是一個開放式的回答，意思是對於「免疫橋接能否被接受」的各種劇本還在討論。

3. 第二段回覆又再次強調，目前正在討論此事，EMA正在等待新的資訊。

我針對這篇蘋果報導的看法：

免疫橋接這件事，EMA的回覆顯示就是「有在討論，但沒有給特定方向」，是一個很中性的回答。最後結果（如果有的話），可能是綠燈，當然也可能是紅燈。EMA的回覆，並沒有favor任何一個特定方向。

蘋果報導為歐盟「考慮開綠燈」，坦白說我覺得已經超譯了歐盟給的回覆。It's inaccurate, to be honest, and even misleading.

最後還有一個很重要的問題。

歐盟的回覆是針對second generation vaccines，中文應該翻譯成「第二代的疫苗」。

但蘋果報導卻寫「新一代的疫苗」。

這兩者完全不同。

究竟，歐盟回覆所稱second generation vaccines，是針對例如輝瑞或莫德納等已經經過認證疫苗的第二代疫苗（例如輝瑞第二代、莫德納第二代等）？或是針對台灣的國產疫苗？

「第二代疫苗」跟「新一代疫苗」，在語意上可能指涉完全不同的東西。

如果要了解歐盟回覆的確切意思，可能必須要「請蘋果公佈當初詢問電郵的全文」，外界才能知道歐盟到底在回答什麼。

最後，我強調對蘋果這篇報導沒有惡意。我甚至非常肯定他們願意主動聯繫歐盟進行確認。只是這篇報導，需要更多資訊來佐證。

再者，我支持國產疫苗，但必須是在一個 #安全且有效 的原則。這也是為何，我認為蘋果報導中這個來自歐盟的回覆，值得進一步釐清。

大家可以看看這段原文，也歡迎留言告訴我你們的想法。

#免疫橋接

【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.

聯合國徵求會議記錄員（中文）
駐紐約
中文母語，英文優，會UN其他官方語言者加分
三關面試：線上筆試→實體筆試→最終測試

▲Responsibilities
Within delegated authority, the Verbatim Reporter will be responsible for the following duties: (These duties are generic and may not be carried out by all Verbatim Reporters.)

• Produces in extenso verbatim records of meetings.
• Edits the original language version as necessary for accuracy, making the required changes for style, syntax and grammar and procedure.
• Transcribes and/or translates assigned portions of meetings.
• Compares transcript of interpretation with original language version to ensure completeness and accuracy of the records, and translates passages that are either inaccurate or incomplete.
• Consults relevant reference resources.
• May perform above duties on a self-revising basis.
• May perform other related duties, as required.


▲Education
• Hold at least a three-year university degree from a university or institution of equivalent status at which Chinese is the principal language of instruction or hold a university degree from a recognised school of translation;

• The requirement for a university degree or its equivalent from a university or institution of equivalent status mentioned above may be waived for staff members who, in the judgement of the Board of Examiners, have adequate post-secondary educational qualifications from a university or institution of equivalent status and adequate secondary educational qualifications from an establishment at which the principal language of instruction is Chinese, in addition to five years of continuous service with the United Nations Secretariat by 31 December 1989.

▲Work Experience
Two years of progressively responsible experience in the fields of translation, editing, verbatim reporting, or other related fields will be an asset.

聯合國傳送門↓
https://inspira.un.org/…/UN_CUSTOMIZATIONS.UN_JOB_DETAIL.GB…&