Foreign enterprises based in Hong Kong are “unsettled” about the vagueness of the Beijing-imposed national security law, and have difficulties trudging through the legislation, according to the president of the city’s American Chamber of Commerce.

Read: https://bit.ly/3cHjlCr

香港美國商會認為港區國安法帶來很大不確定性，企業以及個人在很多範疇上都不知道其「紅線」在哪裏，令到企業失去信心。

________
📱Download the app:
http://onelink.to/appledailyapp
📰 Latest news:
http://appledaily.com/engnews/
🐤 Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/appledaily_hk
💪🏻 Subscribe and show your support:
https://bit.ly/2ZYKpHP

#AppleDailyENG

台灣最大公約數 – 反共去統不反中
The True Common Denominator of Taiwan

我察覺到一個新的台灣共識（最大公約數）正在成形，而且已經接近完成。雖然許多人還沒意識到這點，也還有一些人尚處在無感、或雖然有感但心理上拒絕的階段。

I sensed a New Taiwan Consensus is forming and near completion, although many are still not fully aware of it, some at the psychological stage of ignoring it and some even in total denial .

這新共識可以用三個原素的一句話來總結：反共、去統、不反中國平民。三元素環環相扣，構成了一個具有主旋律的直白命題：那些已經把台灣視為自己家鄉的人，已經把台灣當成一個與他方無涉的主體。

This New Consensus can be summarized in one expression with three parallel elements: opposing communism, de-unification and neutralness toward Chinese civilians. These three elements constitute an organic whole with a common theme that simply says, people who took Taiwan as their home deemed themselves as one distinct entity .

為了讓人們充分理解這三元素的意義，需要做一些進一步闡釋。我們這就開始。

I understand some elaboration may be needed to allow the three elements to be fully appreciated, especially the third one. Let me begin.

1. 反共。台灣其實並沒有那麼反對自由的社會主義；事實上，台灣社會本身在日常生活型態中就含有明顯的自由社會主義的痕跡。但是，台灣絕不會容忍社會主義精神脫序到共產主義的地步。若然，那種社會主義就是敵人，沒有討論的餘地。台灣海峽彼岸的中國共產黨（CCP），就屬於這一類。

1. Opposing Communism – Taiwan is not that much against liberal socialism. In fact,there is a rather obvious strain of it already existing in its social life. However, Taiwan would not tolerate socialism when carried away to the extent of communism, and would take it as enemy. Period. Chinese Communist Party (CCP) on the other end of the Strait falls into this category.

2. 去統。在台灣，不但老一輩了解中共天天掛在嘴邊玩弄的「統一」，只不過是其用來維持政權、控制已經被洗過腦平民的一種虛偽口號，而年輕一輩只會以荒謬視之。因而，此處並沒有用過去的「反統」一詞，而是用「去統」，表示了一種將「統一」概念徹底由腦中去除的意思。就像「大掃除」的意思一樣，老早就該扔掉的東西就把它扔掉。

2. De-Unification – Not only do the older generations realize that the jingling of
“unification” of the CCP is just a bogus slogan for upholding its regime’s control
over the brain-washed civilians, the young generation of Taiwan simply finds the
slogan ridiculous. Therefore, rather than using the term “anti-Unification” as people used to do in the past, I think “De-Unification” – the unshackling of the very idea of unification, as one can relate with the word “de-clutter”- is a better suited term.

3. 不反中，指的是對中國平民保持中性的態度。過去三年間，包括我自己以及國際輿論，已經破除了那個存在已久的迷思 – 中共CCP就等同中國。情況根本不是這樣的。中共不等同中國，更不用說等同中國人民了。中共是一個具有9千8百萬黨員的巨大政黨，但那只是住在那塊土地上的14億人當中的7%。

3. Neutralness towards Chinese Civilians – In the past three years, people in Taiwan including myself, as well as the international community, have debunked the long-existed myth that CCP Is China. No, far from it. CCP is NOT equivalent to China, let alone the Chinese people. CCP is a huge party of 98 million members and that accounts for only 7% of the 1.4 billion Chinese people living on that landmass.

簡單的算數就可以呈現真相。對任何國家，如果僅佔7%的人口可以在政治上完全控制100%的人口，唯一的可能就是實施殘酷暴力或通過暴力改變人的頭腦。

Simple math would tell the truth. In any nation, when 7% of the population politically controls 100% of the population, it would be an impossibility unless by brutal violence or total brain coercion.

中國平民本身就是受害者。其他的國家，不應該膝蓋反應式的把受害者視為天生就是邪惡的。因此，無論在心態上還是現實地緣政治考慮下，台灣社會都應該把「必反」這詞留給共產黨而不是受害的平民。

Therefore, considering the Chinese civilians are victims themselves, people from other parts of the world should not act in a knee-jerk way towards the ordinary, victimized Chinese Civilians as if they are born evil. Either under a proper mindset or the practicality associated with geopolitics, Taiwanese society should and is starting to understand this point. “Anti-“ is an attitude reserved for CCP and not intrinsically for the ordinary and mostly victimized civilians.

這才是台灣的最大公約數。然而，為了選票的政治人物及民調機構拖累了台灣。每年每月的民調都在問早已失效的問題：你偏藍還是偏綠？你贊成獨立還是統一？

Putting together the above three Elements, thus there is the New Taiwan Consensus. What’s falling behind and dragging Taiwan’s feet, are the ballot-hungry politicians and the various outdated polling agencies. They do so many so-called popular surveys every year, sometimes monthly. And they stick to the long invalid way of setting up their survey questions: Are you favoring Green (DPP) or Blue(KMT)? Are you pro-independent or Pro-unification?

這種自我設限或自我審查的問法，使得其他國家以為台灣是個分裂社會。

This kind of self-confined or self-censored surveys leave other nations the impression that Taiwan is a split society, Green or Blue, Independence or unification etc.

台灣這種導致外人認為台灣是個分裂國家的作法，實在愚蠢。如果問的問題對，台灣是沒有分裂的。例如，如果將「你贊不贊成獨立」改為「你反共不反共」，結果肯定是98%以上。

It’s such a foolish thing to do for Taiwan itself misleading outsiders into deeming Taiwan as a split country. There is absolutely no split should the right questions be asked in the surveys. For example, had the question been changed from “Are you pro-independence or anti-independence” into “Are you pro-communism or anti-communism”，then the result would have been a clear-cut 98% or even 99.5% towards “anti”.

若問「你是反中國共產黨還是反中國老百姓」，前者不會低於80%，後者不會高於20%。

Now, try this further question: “Are you anti-Chinese Communist Party, or anti-Chinese common people”, my guess is the former gets at least 80% and the latter gets 20% at most.

第三個問題：「你願不願意被共產黨統治」，保證結果是99.9%的「不願意」。
The third question: “Would you be willing to live under the Communist Rule”? That would guarantee a resounding NO answer of 99.9%.

這就是新台灣共識、社會的最大公約數，應該向世界大聲、清楚、不含糊的說出來。

This is exactly how the New Taiwan Consensus looks like – the true common denominator among a seemingly divided Taiwan. And the New Taiwan Consensus should be articulated to the rest of the world, no vagueness, no grey area and unambiguously.

不信的話，可以用上述問題做幾次民調。而且我保證，在不久的將來，所有民主國家都會端出類似「台灣共識」的政策原則。

For any surveyor or politician who still has doubts about this New Taiwan Consensus, he or she can just conduct new surveys with questions suggested as above. And, I myself am convinced, in a not-so-distant future, all democratic countries on the planet would issue national policies based on guidelines similar to the New Taiwan Consensus, for the goodness of their respective countries.

所以，台灣為什麼不這樣做呢？這可是台灣展示世界政治領導力的機會啊！

So, Hey, Taiwan! Why not put a thrust on this Taiwan Consensus to the world by publicizing it unambiguously and show some political leadership, just for once?

後記：以雙語向全球發聲，將是我接下致力的方向。所使用的這兩種文字，涵蓋了35億人口，接近地球的一半人數。這個行動，將以 「前哨預策」網站 為核心基地，其他的社交媒體，只要有傳播力道，都會被用為衛星來做整體運作。

個人的思考、判斷不一定對，您也不見得同意，但是，我保證這平台中的每一句話都是獨立的、出自內心的。而今天的台灣，乃至於世界，最缺的就是突破傳統成見、不受黨派左右、同時又知錯能改的獨立思考力量。不知您是否同意？

「前哨預策」平台將分為三步走：內容平台 – 互動平台 – 行動平台。剛誕生的它，當前還只是個內容平台，但達到一定數量的會員支持後，將加入各種新媒體形式，與會員就重要議題互動，並以「達成不同意見之間的最大公約數」為目標。一旦在會員內部形成「最大公約數」後，就構成了行動的基礎。至於行動的形式，也由願意推動或參與的會員決定。

此平台婉拒任何政黨、政府的贊助，只接受個人會員或企業會員的贊助；所有收入及贊助，均將用於「讓台灣更好」的事務上，以及推動、發揮台灣作為東亞及世界的「關鍵少數」的槓桿角色，為人類下一波文明做出量力而為的貢獻。

我只能說，十年來的不斷保持獨立，希望能換得您對「不受任何政黨、政府左右」這一點點價值的認同。

范疇
謹上

於台灣
首頁鏈接： InsightFan.com
訂閱鏈接： https://www.insightfan.com/membershipspricing/

【召集港人聯署！促請歐洲領袖反對《港版國安法》：https://bit.ly/noevillaw 】

自中共一意孤行硬推《港版國安法》以來，擁有27個成員國的歐盟已發聲明批評國安法嚴重損害一國兩制，同時間歐洲亦有七個國家（英國、法國、德國、瑞典、挪威、瑞士、芬蘭）分別表達對於北京硬推惡法的疑慮，包括質疑立法違反《中英聯合聲明》和法治原則，甚至有國家政府已表明會在歐盟推動對中制裁。

為著爭取國際關注，民間外交網絡發言人張崑陽 Sunny Cheung、前立法會議員羅冠聰 Nathan Law和我早前亦發起聯署，促請歐洲各國領袖反對惡法。然而，至今仍有15個國家政府（西班牙、意大利、比利時、捷克、丹麥、冰島、愛沙尼亞、希臘、愛爾蘭、立陶宛、盧森堡、荷蘭、波蘭、斯洛文尼亞、斯洛伐克）尚未作任何表態，三人今天召開記者會，希望鼓勵更多港人集氣聯署。

要知道，歐盟乃中國最大貿易夥伴，亦是香港第三大外來投資地，一旦通過惡法，將影響歐洲各國在港投資及營商利益；其他非歐盟國家在港利益亦將會受損。國安法「外部勢力」定義語焉不詳，過去執法往往政治掛帥，加上中國近年力行「戰狼式外交」，外國人往往成為「人質外交」的犠牲品。因此，惡法一旦通過，將影響各國在港營商利益。

如今香港自治危在旦夕，當務之急必然是鼓動國際盟友支持，而當中絕不只限於爭取個別國家關注，因此是次聯署實在非常關鍵。我們希望集結至少十萬港人的聲勢，懇請英國、瑞士，以及作為歐盟成員國的德國、法國、意大利等，與港人站在同一陣線，促請北京撤回惡法，並加快《馬格尼茨基法案》立法工作，並在與中國貿易協定中加入保障香港人權的條文。

#國際戰線

Petition Calling on European Leaders Against National Security Law for Hong Kong

The Beijing government, with utter disregard of the opposition from the international community and Hong Kong people, seeks to promulgate a controversial and detrimental National Security Bill.

The Chinese Communist Party have been clamping down on human rights activists, lawyers, reporters, civilians as well as foreigners in the name of "National Security". Such is the aggravating human rights condition in China. Under the banner of subversion of the state, China oppressed any investigation on the "Toufu-drag" construction works or poisonous milk-powder. Once the "National Security Bill" (the Bill) had been written into the law, it would inevitably become a tool for oppression and censorship against those who seek the truth and tell the truth.

The severity of the Bill is highlighted by the establishment of an enforcement agency. This will shake up the dynamics of Hong Kong in every possible aspect. The enforcement agency will render the Hong Kong government a mere figurehead and replaces the Hong Kong Police Force as the major ruling authority. It is no surprise that there will be renditions to China for trial and detention. This irrevocably jeopardizes the promises to rule of law, human rights, and an independent judiciary as laid down in the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Hong Kong can no longer maintain its status as an open and liberal international metropolis.
The EU, being China's most significant trading partner and having made the third most investments in Hong Kong, will surely be affected in terms of its investment interests and management conditions; other European countries that have a stake in Hong Kong will also be undermined. The vagueness in what counts as foreign intervention leaves room for an aggressive interpretation by the Chinese government, who for the record utilizes these laws in threatening other countries. Foreigners in Hong Kong may be treated as hostages in accordance with China's diplomatic policies. The risks for foreign investors are self-explanatory.

With the Bill closing in, liberty and autonomy enjoyed by Hong Kong shall, without doubt, face utter compromise. We urge the governments of the UK, members States of the EU, namely Germany, France, and Italy, etc. as well as other non-EU European states, such Switzerland, to stand with freedom and democracy and to stand with Hong Kong in pressuring the Beijing government to retrieve its Bill. It is of the essence for friends of Hong Kong to take the action in the incorporation of the Magnitsky Act into the municipal law. We also urge countries dealing with China to insert clauses that protect Hong Kong's human rights into trade agreements.