在越南時間4/22晚上21點19分26秒
我的紛絲專頁＃李鼎的也不賴
突然出現了這張黑色的截圖
截圖來自我最新的作品「我在台61」電影版的最後一張劇情
那是整部片到最後所有主創人員名單出來前的最後一個畫面
應該所有作品最後一個畫面
都是極為重要的
而「我在台61」卻是選了三個字最為結束
叫做「路上見」
並用了三位主角：李亦捷、楊鎮、福地祐介的聲音詮釋
而這個來自越南的讀者的截圖留話
竟是把這句話的翻譯
圈了起來
給了一的大問號
並寫了「MEET」

這樣的截圖
好像看到小學作業老師對於你的作業不滿意
而做的舉動

面對電影最後一個畫面被人截圖
然後用了小學老師批改作業的方式
留在你公開的粉絲專頁
換成是你
你會怎麼想？

我有點高興
因為
我一直知道自己跟自己創作的團隊在做什麼
所以有一種
拍片拍了這麼久
終於有人
會對我們英文翻譯的團隊
提出想法了
而且來自越南
（原來現在連越南都看得到這部電影了）

於是我立刻去電美國給我們這部電影的翻譯
他當然也第一時間看了這位來自越南女士的臉書帳號
確定不是傳說中的「網軍」
於是
翻譯朱倩儀小姐
就用中英文
一起回應了這位來自越南的阮女士
關於「ME」與「meet」
在這部作品裡的概念

分享朱倩儀小姐的留言
也很樂見
最後這位阮女士
在留言板上的回應

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

親愛的阮女士，
謝謝您的指教！我萬分感謝您觀賞這部電影，而且給予我們您寶貴的意見。
您建議在劇終「我們 路上見」（Let’s Me Again, on the road.) 應該是（Let’s Meet again, on the road)。您的建議在標準文法完全是正確的。但可以容許我為您解釋一下最終導演仍採用了我們使用「me」的想法嗎？

語言本就是一多層次的表達工具。中文尤其美麗，尤其一個簡單的用字可以有好多不同的心思。
在接到這份翻譯的殊榮時，我是既興奮又緊張的。李鼎導演的詩意作家特質,及對角色，故事的詮釋，描寫及張力，絶對不是平舖直敘就能感受到他的初衷，他的溫度。所以，明知冒險，我還是選擇做了大膽的嘗試。我和團隊（二位ABC) 經由彼此對各自語言及文化的了解，試著把李亦捷，Ray （楊鎮）及福地佑介的個性，藉由使用語言的個性，帶入他們的對話裏。
因著「台61」而讓他們三位相遇，也延伸了之後的故事。在從最初Ray 安靜的推著重機不願打擾到海鳥的開始，第一個「me」就出現了，然後是亦捷⋯所以。
在最後，當三個人，開心但不捨地以咖啡乾杯後的分道揚鑣， 許下再見面的心願時，這是李鼎導演在影片中第二次使用「路上見」（第一次在福地祐介留給李亦捷的紙條中）（第一次我們翻譯使用的是：See you on the Road），而當第二次再度使用「路上見」並用在片尾，使用三位角色的聲音，我們覺得意義非凡，不再來自於See you on the Road的想像，決定讓中文中的詩意，翻成Let’s Me again, on the road.這讓三個角色心中無論是吶喊，低訴或是緯緯道來，我想，都是由她/他的心「me!」「 Let’s Me...」讓我，在路上再次遇見你。

很感謝李鼎導演給了我和團隊這樣美好第一次翻譯的經驗，我仍有許多需要進步的空間，也期望因著這部「我在台61」, 我們都因此有共享的公路，感動及連結。
再次謝謝你也觀賞「我在台61」，所以我們相遇，聽到彼此的聲音。

Dear Ms. Nguyễn
Thank you so much for the comments. I am so grateful that you watched the movie and given valuable comments. Please allow me to explain the usage of “me” here ( I am responsible to translate the scripts.)
Yes, you are absolutely right on the “ Let’s MEET” again!” in most of the circumstances. But I am humbling to say that my purpose of translating the word “meet” to “me” is trying to emphasis on the willingness of “coming back on the road again” from three individual main characters. They are all cheering up for their fate to be together because of Highway 61. So I thought they would shout out loud from their hearts to say “let’s me again, on the road!” to echo the director Lee’s poetic style.
Like every language, it’s never easy to complete portrait the whole story from one to another. A simple word could have few different meaning in the culture. It’s truly my pleasure had the opportunity to translate the Chinese( or Taiwanese) story to English. There are so many beautiful words and touching moments that just can’t change words to words. And each characters has her/his personality and tones. Therefore, I try to adopt the heart of story with the understanding of English that I think it would sound most authentic for each characters. This has been an amazing experience to me, walking along with director Lee to see my country and helping to deliver the landscape, the sea breeze, the birds, the temple...and the Highway 61 to you in different language.
Thank you again for the heart of going through the Highway 61 journey with us, and share your thoughts!

Btw, it’s very nice meeting you here. Could I assume you may from Vietnam？ My husband is also from Vietnam and we live in Colorado now.

Regards,
Chien Yi 朱倩儀 （Chienyi Luu）

＃我在台61
#發現動人的翻譯故事
＃很喜歡這樣的創作互動
＃也為這部作品的每一個人感到驕傲與開心
＃語言很奇妙
＃中文尤為奇妙
＃這部片的日文也是一種很神奇的遭遇

「我在台61」中英文電影版傳送門
https://youtu.be/uhPTvLBNRo0

【奧黛麗·赫本：優雅的致詞】

For what is friendship
何為友誼？

if not a willingness to give
若非誠心給予：

to give laughter
盼你破涕為笑。

where there are tears
傷心落淚時，

comfort where there are fears
害怕時，安慰著你。

pleasure，fantasy and fun where there is none
於平淡無奇的生活中，為你平添了想像與愉悅

for young and old to create a world they may never see
也為所有的人們，創造前所未有的美好世界 。
⋯⋯

1988奧斯卡金像獎頒獎：
* https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MMSEz7HQYDc&t=2s

中文字幕：http://t.cn/Ai3alUXb

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rKgyBw6SHuc&t=36s

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

謝謝你們願意訂閱這個無聊的頻道!
Thank you for your willingness to subscribe to this boring channel!
雖然我不常更新影片，但是我會努力的!
Although I don’t update videos often, I will continue to work hard!
再次感謝!
Thanks again!
====Where can I find me?====
Twitter:https://twitter.com/jcgieafe?lang=zh-tw
Tumblr:https://rabbit1225.tumblr.com/
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/RarabbitTW/
Deviantart:https://www.deviantart.com/jcgieafe
====Commissions====
English:https://rarabbit.weebly.com/
中文委託單:https://rarabbit0326.wordpress.com/