熱門Ptt文章

[爆卦]interpretations中文是什麼？優點缺點精華區懶人包

雖然這篇interpretations中文鄉民發文沒有被收入到精華區：在interpretations中文這個話題中，我們另外找到其它相關的精選爆讚文章

在 interpretations中文產品中有3篇Facebook貼文，粉絲數超過4萬的網紅陳冠廷 Kuan-Ting Chen，也在其Facebook貼文中提到， I have recently perused Nicholas Kristof’s NYT piece “China’s Man in Washington, Named Trump”(https://nyti.ms/3h2JXh8). One paragraph in particular ca...

　同時也有4部Youtube影片，追蹤數超過7,280的網紅BonTime Bonnie，也在其Youtube影片中提到，今天跟大家分享一下 我最近是如何逼自己早睡 哈哈 十二點前睡對我來說真的很難 之前一直都是感覺不過一點都辦法睡 不過 這個方法很有用喔～ 讓我們來改造自己生活得更自律吧～ PS： 我的眼晴快好了 現在只有一點點腫紅 :) Skin care products information： CL...

「interpretations中文」的推薦目錄
  • 陳冠廷 Kuan-Ting Chen

    interpretations中文 在 陳冠廷 Kuan-Ting Chen Facebook 的最佳貼文

    2020-08-15 11:47:20
    有 477 人按讚

    I have recently perused Nicholas Kristof’s NYT piece “China’s Man in Washington, Named Trump”(https://nyti.ms/3h2JXh8). One paragraph in particular caught my attention: “A joke in China suggests that Trump’s Chinese name is Chuan Jianguo, or “Build-the-Country Trump.” That’s because Build-the-Country is a common revolutionary name among Communist patriots, and it’s mockingly suggested that Trump’s misrule of the United States is actually bolstering Xi’s regime.”

    Kristoff also avows that since Trump’s ascension to presidency, the American nation became highly polarized. This is reflected in the current administration’s policies on climate change, foreign relations with established U.S. allies, and COVID-19 prevention, all of which are rather ineffective. It also seems like Mr. Trump and his team diverged from the traditional priorities, including promoting free trade, human rights, and other quintessentially American values. As described thoroughly by John Bolton, all these factors contributed to the declining standing of the U.S. in global politics.

    What is more, many people fall prey to CCP’s propaganda and its interpretations of Trump’s actions, which only enhances China’s reputation.

    But that might not exactly be the case.

    The CCP apparently failed to utilize the window of opportunity created by the ineptness of the Trump administration, as China could have grown to the position of a leader by filling in the void left by the U.S.

    During the 2016 APEC Ministerial Meeting in Lima, Peru, Xi Jinping and his team actively supported the plans to establish the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific, or FTAAP. In contrast, the United States withdrew its signature from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017. Coupled with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), this move bolstered China’s capacity to influence global investments and trade, high-tech mergers and acquisitions, and, overall, expand its geostrategic influence on the entire globe.

    At the same time, various propaganda films about great power competition, military industry, and science and technology surged all at once, and gained remarkable following around the world.

    All this provided a window of opportunity for the CCP to slowly change its course. Around the same time, the distrust for POTUS among U.S. allies’ reached its apex. According to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center, the distrust for the U.S. president in the U.K. reached 75%, 72% in Japan, 70% in Australia, and stunning 86% in France.

    Had the C.C.P,. begun to open up at that time, or at least resumed the governance style of the Hu-Wen administration, it could have reaped the benefits of promoting liberalism where the U.S. failed to deliver. It was the time for Beijing to gradually enhance freedom of speech domestically, pursue sustainable infrastructural projects, gradually reform unfair barriers to trade, transform its S.O.E.s, strengthen protections for private ownership, and vitalize its start-ups and enterprises.

    Moreover, were China to cease the genocide in East Turkestan and refrain from cracking down on Hong Kong's semi-autonomy, it would have greatly enhanced its global international image. Additionally, if paired with slow but steady reforms, Beijing’s respect for sovereignty of its peoples would have attracted a large amount of foreign investment, which in turn would have continued to buttress the country’s growth.

    It is China prerogative to remain idle.
    It might still be possible for Chinese “Dream” to come true.
    Yet, a historic window of opportunity is now closed.

    Xi assumed the tools of proscribing and stalling, which are completely antithetical to the aforementioned window of opportunity.

    Today, China is more authoritarian, less flexible, and fully deprived of horizontal accountability. Its reliance on wolf warrior diplomacy backfired: for example, the Swedish parliament sought to expel the Chinese ambassador to Stockholm. Also, Prague, the capital of Czechia, terminated its sister-city agreement with Shanghai and instead signed a new one with Taipei. Last but not least, we ought not to forget about the recent fiasco in the relations with the United States who ordered the shutdown of China’s consulate in Houston. All of this took its toll on China’s reputation.

    Its international standing and inability to replace the U.S. as the major global power are not the only issues China is currently facing.
    As it experiences multiple domestic and international shocks, China struggles to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and tame the disastrous floods of Yangtze River. The swarm of locusts of biblical proportions is also crippling Beijing’s institutional capacity and may soon lead to food shortages. In fact, the precarity of food supply further diminishes the level of trust for Chinese authorities.

    In 2019, the Pew Research Center conducted a public opinion survey to examine the international views of China. In the U.S., Argentina, the U.K., Canada, Germany, and Ukraine, only about 30% of respondents claim a favorable view of China.

    As the COVID-19 pandemic rages in the U.S., as many as 73% of U.S. respondents view China unfavorably.

    Recently, the C.C.P. is losing its focus by continuously shifting targets. In fact, I believe there is no need for the C.C.P.to rely on nationalistic appeals, since in this new century values, business relations, and fair competition are all far more important than greater than delusive blood ties.
    China lies only 130 kilometers away from us. Of course, we welcome dialogue and seek to avoid misjudgments. But we also distinguish between the C.C.P. and China. While we do welcome dialogue, but we will not be coerced to talk under unjust preconditions or in fear.

    The only fair prerequisites are those of reciprocity, mutual respect as well as fairness and openness with respect for the rule of law.
    Source: Pew Research Center

    最近看到紐約時報中文版的一篇文章
    <美國的川普，中國的「川建國」>，其中一小段是這樣的

    「在中國，人們戲稱川普的中文名字是川建國。那是因為建國是共產黨愛國者中一個普遍的革命人名。它在諷刺地暗示川普對美國的治理不當實際上是在鞏固習近平的政權。」

    裡面也提到，川普在任的幾年，國家更分裂，對於氣候變遷，傳統美國盟友，乃至於疫情處理等都相當拙劣，對於美國傳統的自由貿易、人權等價值也基本上都沒有太大興趣。這些方針，導致美國在世界的評價降低，波頓的新書也多有描述。

    除此之外，許多不幸相信中共宣傳，又或者是中共圈養的小粉紅，特別故意愛宣傳川普增強中國的威望。

    但這不是真的。

    中共完全沒有掌握美國做得不夠好的地方，去增強其在世界的領導力。

    在2016年時，秘魯的亞太峰會舉行期間，習近平政權爭取（RCEP）及亞太自由貿易區（FTAAP）談判；對比2017年初，美國剛宣布退出ＴＰＰ，加上中國到「一帶一路」和亞洲基礎設施投資銀行，中國當時在世界全面發揮投資貿易、高科技併購還有其地緣戰略的影響力。

    也是那個時候，各種的大國崛起、大國軍工、大國科技的宣傳影片此起彼落，似乎正準備要在世界舞台發光發熱。

    這曾經是中共慢慢轉向的一個機會之窗。彼時（2017)美國盟友對美國總統的不信任度達到歷史新高，根據皮尤研究中心的資訊，英國對於美國總統的不信任度達到75%、日本72% 澳洲70% 法國更高達86%

    如果那時中共開始有限度的改革，對內放寬言論自由，或者至少維持在胡溫當時的水中，對外追求有責任的基礎建設，逐步緩慢減低不公平的貿易壁壘，對於國有企業改革，增強私營企業、新創企業的活力。

    停止對新疆迫害，不干預香港自治，不僅國際形象會大幅改善，哪怕是緩慢但是穩健的改革，也會讓大量吸引外資，讓中國的活力持續前進。

    哪怕是什麼都不做也好

    那或許有這麽一點可能性，中國「夢」是可以前行的

    但是歷史機緣的大門已經關上。

    習、禁、停、放棄了這個機會之窗，徹底的走向相反的方向。

    更專制、更沒有彈性，更沒有任何制衡的力量。各種戰狼外交，讓瑞典議員提案驅逐中國大使，捷克布拉格市長與台北簽訂姊妹是，就解散上海與該市關係、被美國關閉領事館、各種讓中國形象低下的事情，中共都沒有少做。

    中共不但完全沒有辦法取代美國，在多重國內外的衝擊之下，又是瘟疫，又是超大水患，緊接著蝗害，還有進來的糧食不足問題，正在面臨巨大的瓶頸。

    而糧食的命脈，卻恰恰又在對他最不信任，對中共價值最反對的國家聯盟

    根據皮尤研究中心:Pew Research Center2019調查各國對中國的喜好度，美國、阿根廷、英國、加拿大、德國、烏克蘭等，對於中國的喜好度都在30%上下

    而2020疫情後美國對於中國的不信任度，更高達73%。

    最近中共在演習，又要玩轉移目標的手段，對於中共，其實不必再有民族主義的同情，因為新的世紀，價值、商業模式、公平競爭的制度大於血緣幻想。

    中國離我們只有130公里的距離，我們當然歡迎對話，避免誤判。但我們同時也區分中共與中國，歡迎對話，但不在前提、條件、恐懼之下對話。

    如果真的要有前提，那就是對等、尊重，還有公平公開法治的方式會晤。

    資料來源：皮尤研究中心:Pew Research Center
    （美國著名的民調機構和智庫機構，https://www.pewresearch.org/）

  • 盧斯達

    interpretations中文 在 盧斯達 Facebook 的最佳解答

    2018-06-28 12:14:35
    有 34 人按讚


    知性活動，五個人，七一晚上在港大舉行，好像是需要按連結登記留位。

    【大專學界七一論壇 －「一國兩制到盡頭 恣者旁大畏人修」｜July 1 Forum by Higher Institutions - ‘One Country Two Systems: a Dead-End or a Way Out in Our Future’ 】 (Please scroll down for the English version.)
    從一九九七年七月一日開始，一國兩制隨《基本法》正式於香港實施。經歷廿一年轉變，行政立法機關相繼淪陷，香港社會仍然信守法治的精神和司法獨立的價值。然而，不論是人大釋法、一地兩檢、或是如箭在弦的國歌法和廿三條立法，香港法律在中共政權面前似乎顯得弱不禁風。究竟香港法律能否抵抗政權壓力？一國兩制已「死」，還是一國兩制從設計開始已註定「兩制」只是虛詞詭說？我們所期望的法律和公民權利在一國兩制下有沒有出路？

    大專學界將於七月一日晚舉辦論壇，藉此機會與同學以及廣大市民一同探討以上種種問題，重新審視一國兩制，反思香港未來與一國兩制的關係。詳情如下：

    日期：二零一八年七月一日（星期日）

    時間：晚上七時至九時 （六時半進場）

    地點：香港大學黃麗松講堂
    論壇主題：「一國兩制到盡頭 恣者旁大畏人修」

    嘉賓：戴耀廷副教授 （香港大學法律系）、吳靄儀博士 （執業大律師）、盧斯達先生 (作家)、梁頌恆先生 (青年新政召集人)、鄭立先生 (商人及專欄作家)

    語言：廣東話（屆時將提供英語即時傳譯服務）

    歡迎同學及公眾參與，由於場地座位有限，如欲出席，請先填寫以下表格：
    https://goo.gl/forms/ddBIxrzgtYaxkwkD3
    *本論壇不設劃位
    *大專學生優先入場

    如有任何查詢，歡迎聯絡港大學生會外務副會長彭家浩同學（電郵：[email protected]）。

    主辦單位： 香港城市大學學生會 、恒生管理學院學生會 、香港樹仁大學學生會臨時行政小組、香港理工大學學生會、香港大學學生會、香港中文大學學生會

    協辦單位： 香港大學學生會法律學會 “One Country Two Systems” was brought into implementation with the Basic Law since July 1, 1997. After 21 years, both the executive and legislative branch have fallen, yet we continue to stand by the rule of law and the value of judicial independence. However, our law looks fragile against the Chinese regime: from the NPCSC interpretations and the “co-location arrangement”, to the legislation of the National Anthem Law and Article 23 in our near future. Can our law and legal values stand against the pressure from the Chinese regime? Is “One Country Two Systems” dead, or is the design of “One Country Two Systems” bound to be failed from the very beginning? Is there a way out to the justice and rights we have been longed for under “One Country Two Systems”?

    The students’ unions of higher institutions are holding a forum at the night of July 1 to discuss the above issues and revisit “One Country Two Systems” by delving into recent legal disputes, henceforth rethink the relationship between “One Country Two Systems” and the future of our city. The details are as follows -
    Date: 1 July 2018 (Sunday)
    Time:19:00 - 21:00 (entry starts at 1830)
    Venue: Rayson Huang Theatre, the University of Hong Kong
    Theme of the Forum: ‘One Country Two Systems: a Dead-End or a Way Out in Our Future’
    Guest: Mr Benny Tai Yiu-ting, MH (Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong), Dr Margaret Ng Ngoi-yee (Barrister), Mr Lewis Loud (Writer), Mr Leung Chung-hang (Convenor of Youngspiration), Mr Cheng Lap (Merchant and Columnist)
    Language: Cantonese (Simultaneous interpretation will be provided.) Students of higher institutions and the public are welcome to join. As seats are limited, please fill in the following form if you would like to attend the event:
    https://goo.gl/forms/ddBIxrzgtYaxkwkD3 *This forum has no prior seat assignment *Students of Higher Institution enjoy prior entry If you have any enquiries, please contact Vice-President (External) of the Hong Kong University Students’ Union Jordan PANG Ka Ho (email: [email protected]).

    Organisers: City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union, Hang Seng Management College Students' Union, Interim Executive Committee of The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Students' Union, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union, The Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong
    Co-organiser: Law Association, HKUSU

  • CommonWealth Magazine

    interpretations中文 在 CommonWealth Magazine Facebook 的精選貼文

    2017-04-06 21:30:00
    有 6 人按讚


    "Hong Kong and China are very different in terms of system, society and judiciary, and have very different views and expectations about the territory’s democratic progress and civil society. Let alone, in the eyes of Beijing, Hong Kong always harbored 'leftover evil supporters' of the British government. But for the people of Hong Kong, it felt more like they benefited from the 'leftover glory' of the British colonial period, be it with regard to the rule of law or basic infrastructure. Just by looking at the emotions and historical interpretations regarding the colonial period, you can see the difference between Hong Kong and Beijing."

    ● Click the 'EN-CH' icon to read the article in Chinese.
    ● 點選' EN-CH ' 按鈕，閱讀本文中文版

    #LuPing #HongKong #China #HKChiefexEcutiveElection #CarrieLam #TaiwanInsight #GoToCommonWealthNow

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關網站