[爆卦]substantive中文是什麼?優點缺點精華區懶人包

雖然這篇substantive中文鄉民發文沒有被收入到精華區:在substantive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 substantive中文產品中有4篇Facebook貼文,粉絲數超過23萬的網紅健吾,也在其Facebook貼文中提到, 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》...

 同時也有10000部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル,也在其Youtube影片中提到,...

  • substantive中文 在 健吾 Facebook 的最佳解答

    2019-07-10 18:56:12
    有 354 人按讚


    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

  • substantive中文 在 Kai Chi Leung 梁啟智 Facebook 的精選貼文

    2019-07-09 15:26:18
    有 39 人按讚


    學習官僚語言其實好緊要

    [#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

  • substantive中文 在 葉大華 Facebook 的最佳貼文

    2018-05-16 07:51:37
    有 1 人按讚


    Taiwan Social Welfare Organizations support Taiwan’s meaningful participation in the 2018 WHA

    As declared in the WHO Constitution, “The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition.” In light of this founding principle, we submit that every Taiwanese citizen has the fundamental right to participate in the WHA and the WHO.
    The WHO has long espoused Universal Health Coverage (UHC) and promoted children’s early development as well as adolescents’ health and welfare around the world. In this spirit, Taiwan was the first Asian country to institute UHC, and has achieved an insurance coverage rate of 99.9% through relatively low annual health expenditures of 6.3% of GDP. Taiwan is willing and able to share the lessons it has learned from this successful experience with other nations at the WHA. Without Taiwan’s attendance at the WHA, and participation in the WHO’s technical meetings, co-operations and activities, the global health system would certainly lose a crucial and valuable collaborative partner, and significantly delay the implementation of the WHO’s central objective: improving the health and welfare of all people.
    In a statement issued on Rare Disease Day 2018, the WHO emphasized that the concept of UHC embraces access to needed health care for all people, including sufferers of rare disease, without imposing undue financial hardship. Taiwan was the only nation to have officially incorporated rare disease prevention and patient welfare into its Rare Disease Act legislation. Its National Health Insurance system provides full reimbursement for all needed medication, and subsidizes special nutritional supplements and emergency medication for rare disease patients. Taiwan’s outstanding accomplishments and experience in the care of rare diseases should be shared internationally to galvanize the advancement of UHC.
    Over the past decades, Taiwan government and social welfare organizations also have dedicated to seeking necessary resource as healthcare, medicines-supply and social caring for disadvantaged groups through legislation, advocacy or group-interaction which to construct a solidity and energetic social welfare system. To ensure every disadvantage people can be taken care of under a proper medical system. No necessary considering potential financial risks among families to secure basic health and security.

    Taiwan has been actively participating in international health care organizations for a long time. Taiwan’s non-governmental organizations have spread across the world. There are more than 73 countries, 336 major plans and international exchanges have been implemented and there is countless substantive diplomacy happened. The step-by-step, pragmatic, and true occurrence means that Taiwan has the ability to make substantial contributions to help the disadvantaged groups around the world.
    Taiwan social welfare organizations are willing to share the mission and experience in the caring of disadvantaged groups internationally to galvanize the advancement of UHC. Taiwan social welfare organizations have shared our experiences through Pragmatic Diplomacy internationally, so please don’t ignore our efforts. Therefore, we strongly urged Taiwan to be treated fairly. Just as the people with rare diseases cannot be left behind in global health coverage, the health issues of Taiwan’s 23 million people should not become “outside of universal health coverage”. Taiwan should have meaningful participate in the 2018 World Health Assembly, share Taiwan’s experience with the world, help other countries to promote policies that take care of the disadvantaged, face potential health challenges, and jointly realize the health of the World Health Organization as a basic human rights.

    臺灣社會福利團體聯合國際記者會 中文聲明
    【支持臺灣有意義參與2018年世界衛生大會】
    誠如世界衛生組織(WHO)憲章所揭櫫的宗旨:「健康是基本人權,是普世價值,不因種族、宗教、政治信仰、經濟或社會情境而有所分別。」爰此,參與世界衛生大會(WHA)與世界衛生組織(WHO)乃是臺灣每位人民的基本權利。
    世界衛生組織長久以來戮力於實踐「全民健康覆蓋(Universal Health Coverage)」的願景,並倡議特殊及弱勢族群的健康與福祉。而臺灣是亞洲地區最早落實全民健康保險制度的國家,納保率達99.9%、醫療花費僅佔GDP約6.3%,有意願也有能力在世界衛生大會向各國分享相關經驗。然而臺灣無法出席世界衛生大會及全面參與世界衛生組織相關技術性會議、機制及活動的結果,將使全球衛生體系失去一個重要的合作夥伴,延宕世界衛生組織提升全球人類健康水準的目標。
    根據世界衛生組織在2018年世界罕見疾病日發布聲明中所強調:「全民健康覆蓋」意味著所有人皆能在免於財務困難的情況下獲得其所需的醫療衛生服務,其中即包括能確保社會各角落的民眾都能獲得所需的醫療照護及關懷服務。而臺灣對於特殊及弱勢族群的完善照護向來是國際衛生領域的表率,在2000年成為全球第一將罕見疾病防治與福利保障正式立法之國家,因此在臺灣,這些罹患罕見疾病的孩童,都能在妥善的醫療體系下被照護,所以臺灣儼然是世界衛生組織推動「全民健康覆蓋」目標的重要典範。
    數十年來,臺灣政府與民間社福團體不遺餘力結合多方資源,透過立法、倡議或團體互動等方式,保障特殊及弱勢族群必要的醫療照護、藥物供給及社會關懷服務,齊力建構功能健全、服務能量滿載之醫療及社會福利體系,讓每位特殊及弱勢朋友都能在妥善的醫療體系下被照顧、在免於財務風險的家庭中成長,保障其應有的基本健康與安全。
    臺灣長久以來積極參與國際健康照護組織,台灣民間團體的足跡遍佈全球,目前已經超過73個國家、重大計畫案次數超過336次其他大小國際交流、實質外交不計其數。一步一腳印的、務實的、真實的發生,亦即代表臺灣有能力、有使命為幫助全世界弱勢族群做出實質貢獻。
    臺灣的社會福利團體願意將照護每位特殊及弱勢朋友的使命與經驗分享到全世界,用於協助世界衛生組織推動「全民健康覆蓋」的願景,台灣社福團體用實質外交交流,將經驗貢獻至全球,請世界衛生大會不要忘了我們民間團體的努力,所以我們強力支持並呼籲臺灣應該被公平對待之,正如極少數的罕見疾病患者不容見棄於全球健康覆盖之外,台灣2300萬人的健康議題,更不應該成為「全民健康覆蓋」之外的世界孤兒,讓臺灣有意義參與2018年世界衛生大會,將臺灣的經驗分享給全世界,協助其他國家推動照顧弱勢之政策及面對潛在的衛生挑戰,共同為實現世界衛生組織所揭示健康為基本人權之願景而努力。


    Co-signatories:
    社團法人台灣社會福利總盟(Taiwan Social Welfare League)
    財團法人罕見疾病基金會(Taiwan Foundation for Rare Disorders)
    財團法人勵馨社會福利事業基金會(The Garden of Hope Foundation)
    財團法人陽光社會福利基金會(Sunshine Social Welfare Foundation)
    財團法人伊甸社會福利基金會(Eden Social Welfare Foundation)
    社團法人中華民國身心障礙聯盟(Disability Alliance of Republic of China)
    社團法人中華民國智障者家長總會(Parents Association for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities)
    社團法人臺灣社會工作專業人員協會(Taiwan Association of Social Workers)
    社團法人台灣社會心理復健協會(Taiwan Association for Psycho-Social Rehabilitation)
    財團法人基督教芥菜種會(The Mustard Seed Mission)
    社團法人台灣少年權益與福利促進聯盟(Taiwan Alliance For Advancement of Youth Rights And Welfare)
    社團法人台灣南方社會力聯盟(Social Power from Southern Taiwan)
    社團法人台灣婦女團體全國聯合會(National Alliance of Taiwan Women's Associations)
    社團法人中華民國社區重聽福利協會(Taiwan Association for Community Hard-Of-Hearing People And Welfare)
    社團法人中華民國白化症者關懷協會(Taiwan Albino Caring Association)
    財團法人靖娟兒童安全文教基金會(Jing Chuan Child Safety Foundation)
    社團法人中華民國老人福利推動聯盟(Federation for Welfare of the Elderly)
    社團法人中華民國自閉症總會(Autism Society of Taiwan)
    社團法人台灣健康人權行動協會(Taiwan Health Right Initiative)
    財團法人台灣兒童暨家庭扶助基金會(Taiwan Fund for Children and Families)
    社團法人中華民國家庭照顧者關懷總會(Taiwan Association of Family Caregivers)
    社團法人台灣多發性硬化症協會(Multiple Sclerosis Association Taiwan)

  • substantive中文 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最佳貼文

    2021-10-01 13:19:08

  • substantive中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最佳貼文

    2021-10-01 13:10:45

  • substantive中文 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文

    2021-10-01 13:09:56

你可能也想看看

搜尋相關網站