關於 司法獨立原則包括哪四種意義 ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

【對華政策的範式轉移】絕對是歷史性講話.
#成萬字 #萬言書 #頹譯都譯死人

----小弟頹譯------
蓬佩奧：謝謝。謝謝你們。州長，您的慷慨介紹。的確是這樣：當您在那個體育館裡散步時，說出“蓬佩奧”的名字，人們就會耳語。因為，我有一個兄弟，Mark，他是一個非常好，一位非常出色的籃球運動員。

請為藍鷹榮譽衛隊（Blue Eagles Honor Guard）及飛行員Kayla Highsmith下士對國歌的精彩演繹給多一次掌聲如何？ （掌聲）

也要感謝Laurie牧師那動人的祈禱，我還要感謝Hugh Hewitt和尼克遜基金會的邀請讓我在這個重要的美國機構發言。很高興能受空軍人員演唱，由海軍陸戰隊介紹，讓個一個陸軍傢伙站在海軍傢伙的房子前面。 （笑聲）（按蓬佩奧曾在美國陸軍服役 ）一切都很好。

很榮幸來到Yorba Linda，尼克遜的父親在那裡建立了他出生和成長的房屋。

在這困難時刻，使今天成為可能的尼克遜中心董事會和工作人員，感謝，感謝我和我的團隊使這一天成為可能。

我們很幸運能在觀眾中見到一些特別的嘉賓，包括我認識的Chris Nixon (尼克遜的孫，Christopher Nixon Cox)。我還要感謝Tricia Nixon和Julie Nixon Eisenhower　（尼克遜兩位女兒）對這次訪問的支持。

我還想提一提幾位勇敢的中國持不同政見者，他們長途跋涉並出席。其他尊貴的客人-（掌聲）-尊貴的客人，謝謝您的光臨。那些在帳篷下的人，您們必須支付額外的費用（笑）。

以及那些正在觀看直播的人，感謝您的收看。

最後，正如州長所說，我在Santa Ana出生，離這裡不遠。今天有我的姐姐和她的丈夫在聽眾中。謝謝大家的光臨。我敢打賭，您從沒想過我會站在這裡。

我今天的講話是我在一系列中國演講中的第四組講話，我請國家安全顧問Robert O’Brien，聯邦調查局局長Chris Wray和司法部長Barr陪同我發言。

我們有一個非常明確的目標，一個實在的任務。這是在解釋美國與中國關係的不同方面，數十年來這種關係中出現的巨大失衡以及中國共產黨所計劃的霸權。

我們的目標是明確指出，特朗普總統的中國政策正在解決的對美國人的威脅是明顯的，並且我們正確立保障自由的戰略。Robert O’Brien談到了意識形態。聯邦調查局局長Wray談到了間諜活動。司法部長Barr談到了經濟學。現在，我今天的目標是將這一切匯總給美國人民，並詳細說明中國的威脅對我們的經濟，我們的自由，乃至全球自由民主國家的未來的衝擊。

自基辛格（Kissinger）博士秘密訪問中國以來，到明年已經過去了半個世紀，而尼克松總統訪華50週年也就在2022年。

那時世界大不一樣了。

我們以為與中國交往（engagement）將創造一個帶有友好合作前景的美好未來。

但是今天—今天我們仍然戴著口罩，看著疫性的死亡人數仍在增加，因為中共對世界的承諾沒有兌現。我們每天早上都在讀到鎮壓香港和新疆的新聞消息。

我們看到的中國貿易濫用行為的驚人數字使美國失去了工作，並給整個美國經濟帶來了沉重打擊，包括南加州。而且我們正在看著一支越來越強大，甚至更具威脅性的中國軍隊。

從加利福尼亞州到我的家鄉堪薩斯州以及其他地區，我都有著與美國人心中的疑問：從與中國交往至今，美國人民這50年見到了什麼？

領袖們曾說過的中國邁向自由與民主發展的理論是否正確？

這是中國對 "雙贏" 局面的定義嗎？

實際上，從國務卿的角度來看，美國更安全嗎？我們是否有更大的可能為我們自己實現和平，並為我們之後的子孫後代享有和平？

看，我們必須承認一個硬道理。我們必須承認一個硬道理，它將指導我們在未來幾十年中發展，如果我們要擁有一個自由的21世紀，而不是習近平夢想的中國世紀，那麼與中國盲目交往的舊範式坦白說是沒有贏的機會。我們決不能在此繼續，也絕不能重返。

正如特朗普總統已明確指出的那樣，我們需要一項保護美國經濟乃至我們生活方式的戰略。自由世界必須戰勝這一新的暴政。 The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.

現在，在我似乎不太希望拆除尼克遜總統的遺產之前，我想明確地說，他做了當時他認為最適合美國人民的事情，而且他很可能是對的。

他是中國的傑出學生，冷酷的勇士和中國人民的偉大仰慕者，正如我們一樣。

他意識到中國太重要而不能忽視，即使國力由於自身的共產主義野蠻行為而被削弱。這值得尼克遜給予極大的讚譽。

1967年，尼克遜在一篇非常著名的外交事務文章中解釋了他的未來戰略。

他的話是這樣的：他說：“從長遠來看，我們根本無法永遠把中國留在國際大家庭之外……在中國改變之前，世界不會安全。因此，我們的目標是 —在可能的範圍內，我們必須作出影響，而我們的目標應該是促使改變。”

我認為這是整篇文章中的關鍵詞：“促使改變”。

因此，在歷史性的北京之行中，尼克遜總統開始了我們的交住戰略。他崇高地尋求一個更自由，更安全的世界，並希望中國共產黨能兌現這一承諾。

隨著時間的流逝，美國決策者越來越多地認為，隨著中國變得更加繁榮，它將會對外開放，它會在國內變得更加自由，而實際上在國外所面臨的威脅卻越來越小，它將變得更加友好。這一切似乎都是不可避免的。

但是那個必然的時代已經過去了。我們一直在進行的這種交往並沒有帶來尼克遜總統希望所引起的中國內部的變化。事實是，我們的政策以及其他自由國家的政策使中國經濟從衰落得以恢復，但北京反咬了養活它的國際力量。

我們曾向中國公民張開雙臂，只是看到中國共產黨利用我們的自由開放社會。中國派宣傳員參加了我們的新聞發布會，研究中心，高中，大學，甚至參加了家長教師會議。

我們將台灣的朋友邊緣化，後來台灣蓬勃發展為積極的民主國家。

我們給中國共產黨和政權本身以特殊的經濟待遇，只是看到中共堅持以對其人權侵犯保持沉默作為讓西方公司進入中國市場的代價。

前一天，Robert O’Brien大使舉了幾個例子：萬豪，美國航空，達美航空，聯合航空都從其公司網站上刪除了對台灣的提及，以免激怒北京。在荷里活，這裏的不遠處，距離美國創作自由的中心和自命為社會正義的仲裁者，他們的自我審查可說是對中國發展最不利的參考。

公司對CCP的默許也發生在世界各地。

這種企業忠誠度如何運作？奉承會得到獎勵嗎？讓我引述Barr總檢察長在講話。他在上週的一次演講中說：“中國統治者的最終野心不是與美國進行貿易。是要略奪美國。”

中國剝奪了我們寶貴的知識產權和商業機密，損失了在美國各地了數百萬個就業機會。它從美國吸走了供應鏈，然後添加了一個由奴隸制度製成的小工具。

它使世界上主要的水路對國際貿易而言變得不那麼安全。

尼克遜總統曾經說過，他擔心自己通過向中共開放世界而創造了一個“科學怪人”，這正是如此。

現在，有誠信的人可以辯論為什麼自由國家允許這些年來，這些不好的事情發生。也許我們對中國的惡毒的共產主義幼稚，或者在我們在冷戰勝利後變得自大，或者軟弱的資本主義者被北京所說的“和平崛起”所愚昧。

無論出於何種原因—無論出於何種原因，今天的中國在國內都越來越專制，並開始對其他地方的自由作出干預。

特朗普總統說：夠了。

我不認為兩派的人對我今天所說的事實提出異議。但是即使到現在，也有人堅持認為，為了對話而對話。

現在，要明確地說，我們將繼續討論。但是這些對話的意義是不同的。幾週前，我去了檀香山，與楊潔篪見面。

這是同樣的古老故事—說了很多話，但實際上沒有任何改變任何行為的提議。

楊的承諾，就像中共在他面前做出的許多承諾一樣，都是空洞的。我想，他的期望是我會屈服於他們的要求，因為坦率地說，這是許多前任政府所做的。我沒有，特朗普總統也不會。正如O’Brien很好地解釋的那樣，我們必須記住，中共政權是馬克思列寧主義政權。習近平堅信這已破產的極權主義思想。

正是這種意識形態，正是這種意識形態反映了他數十年來對全球共產主義中國霸權的渴望。美國再也不能忽視我們兩國之間的根本政治和意識形態差異，就像中共從來沒有忽視它們一樣。

以我在眾議院情報委員會，然後擔任中央情報局局長，以及擔任美國國務卿兩年多的經驗，使我對這種中央理解成為可能：

唯一的方式　—　真正改變共產主義中國的唯一方法，不是對中國領導人聽其言，而是觀其行。您會看到美國政策對此結論做出了回應。列根總統說，他是在“信任但要核實”的基礎上與蘇聯打交道的。關於中共，我說我們必須＂不信任和核查＂。 （掌聲）

我們，世界上熱愛自由的國家，必須像尼克遜總統所希望的那樣，促使中國發生變化。我們必須促使中國以更具創造性和果斷性的方式進行變革，因為北京的行動威脅著我們的人民和我們的繁榮。

我們必須首先改變我們的人民和我們的伙伴對中國共產黨的看法。我們必須說實話。我們不能像其他任何國家一樣，把這個假象視為正常國家。

我們知道，與中國進行貿易不像與一個正常的，遵守法律的國家進行貿易。北京威脅將國際協議視為—將協議視為建議，以作為主導全球的渠道。

但是，通過堅持公平條款，就像我們的貿易代表在獲得第一階段貿易協議時所做的那樣，我們可以迫使中國考慮其知識產權盜竊和損害美國工人的政策。

我們也知道，與擁有CCP支持的公司開展業務與與一家加拿大公司開展業務不同。他們不回答獨立委員會的問題，而且其中許多是由國家贊助的，因此無需追求利潤。

華為就是一個很好的例子。我們不再假裝華為是一家無辜的電信公司，它的出現是為了確保您可以和朋友聊天。我們稱其為真正的國家安全威脅，並為採取了相應的行動。

我們也知道，如果我們的公司在中國投資，他們可能會有意或無意地支持共產黨嚴重侵犯人權的行為。

因此，我們的美國財政部和商務部已批准並將那些危害和濫用世界人民最基本權利的中國領導人和實體列入黑名單。多個部門已就商業諮詢機構合作，以確保我們的CEO了解其供應鏈在中國境內的工作。

我們也知道，我們也知道並非所有的中國學生和僱員都只是來這裡賺錢和積累一些知識的普通學生和工人。他們太多人來這裡竊取我們的知識產權並將其帶回自己的國家。司法部和其他機構已對這些罪行進行了嚴厲的懲罰。

我們知道，解放軍也不是正規軍。其目的是維護中國共產黨精英的絕對統治，擴大中國帝國，而不是保護中國人民。

因此，美國國防部加大了工作力度，擴大了在東，南海以及台灣海峽以及整個海峽的航行操作自由。我們還建立了一支太空部隊，以幫助阻止中國對這一最後邊界的侵略。

同樣，坦率地說，我們在美國國務院制定了一套與中國打交道的新政策，推動特朗普總統實現公正與互惠的目標，以改寫幾十年來不斷加劇的失衡。

就在本週，我們宣布關閉在休斯敦的中國領事館，因為它是間諜和知識產權盜竊的樞紐。 （掌聲）

兩週前，我們在南中國海扭轉了過去八年忽略的國際法權益。

我們呼籲中國限制其核能力以適應當今時代的戰略現實。

國務院- 在世界各地，各個層面- 都與中國同行進行了交流，只是要求公平和互惠。

但是我們的方法不只是要變得強硬。那不可能達到我們想要的結果。我們還必須與中國人民互動並賦予他們權力，他們是一個充滿活力，熱愛自由的人民，他們與中國共產黨完全不同。首先是面對面的外交。 （掌聲）

無論我走到哪裡，我都遇到了有才華和勤奮的中國人。我遇過逃離新疆集中營的維吾爾族和哈薩克族。我曾與香港的民主領袖進行了交談，有陳日君樞機到黎智英。兩天前，我在倫敦會見了香港自由戰士羅冠聰。

上個月在我的辦公室裡，我聽到了天安門廣場倖存者的故事。其中之一今天在這裡。王丹是一名關鍵學生，他從未停止為中國人民爭取自由。王先生，請您站起來，以便我們見到您嗎？ （掌聲）

今天與我們同在的還有中國民主運動之父魏京生。他在中國的勞改營度過了幾十年的時間。魏先生，你能站起來嗎？ （掌聲）

我成長及服役於冷戰時期。如果我學到一件事，共產黨人幾乎總是撒謊。他們告訴我們的最大謊言是，他們認為自己能代表14億被監視，壓迫和害怕說出來的人。

恰恰相反。中共比任何敵人都更擔心中國人民的誠實觀點，失去對權力的控制。

試想一下，如果我們能夠從武漢的醫生那裡聽到他們的來信，並且允許他們對新疫病的爆發發出警報，那麼世界會變得更好—更不用說中國內部的人了。

幾十年來，我們的領袖一直無視，淡化勇敢的中國異見者的話，他們警告過我們所面對之政權。

我們不能再忽略它了。他們與任何人一樣知道我們永遠無法回到現狀。

但是改變中共的舉動並不單單是中國人民的使命。自由國家必須努力捍衛自由。這不是簡單的事情。

但是我有信心我們可以做到。我有信心，因為我們以前做過。我們知道這是怎麼回事。我有信心，因為中共正在重複蘇聯犯下的一些同樣的錯誤-疏遠潛在的盟友，破壞國內外的信任，拒絕財產權和法治。

我有信心。我之所以有信心，是因為我看到其他國家之間的覺醒，他們知道我們無法回到過去，美國亦如是。我從布魯塞爾，悉尼到河內都聽說過。

最重要的是，我相信我們可以捍衛自由，因為自由本身是漂亮的。

看看香港人因中共加強對這個驕傲城市的控制，要移居海外。他們揮舞著美國國旗。

是的，確實有差異。與蘇聯不同，中國已深入融入全球經濟。但是，北京對我們依賴，甚於我們依賴他們。 （掌聲）

瞧，我拒絕相信我們生活在一個不可避免中國的時代，某些陷阱（按：修昔底德陷阱）是預設的，中共至上是未來。我們的方法不是注定失敗的，因為美國正在衰落。正如我在今年早些時候在慕尼黑說的那樣，自由世界仍在勝利的一方。我們只需要相信它，就明白它並為此感到自豪。來自世界各地的人們仍然希望加入開放社會。他們來到這裡學習，來到這里工作，來到這里為家人謀生。他們並不想留在中國。

是時候了。今天很高興來到這裡。這是完美的時機。現在是自由國家採取行動的時候了。並非每個國家都將以同樣的方式對待中國，也不應該。每個國家都必須對如何保護自己的主權，如何保護自己的經濟繁榮以及如何保護自己的理想不受中國共產黨的觸碰而有所了解。

但是我呼籲每個國家的每一個領導人—如美國所先行的—簡單地堅持互惠，堅持中國共產黨的透明度和問責制。

這些簡單而強大的標準將取得很大的成就。太長時間了，我們讓中共制定交往條款，但不再這樣做。自由國家必須定下基調。

我們必須遵循相同的原則。我們必須在沙子上劃出共同的界線，而這不能被中共的討價還價或他們的野蠻沖走。確實，這就是美國最近所做的事情，因為我們一勞永逸地拒絕了中國在南中國海的非法主張，因為我們已敦促各國成為廉潔國家，以免其公民的私人信息落在手裡中國共產黨。我們通過制定標準來做到這一點。

現在，這確實很困難。對於一些小國家來說很難。他們害怕被人欺負。因此，其中一些人根本沒有能力，沒有勇氣暫時與我們站在一起。的確，我們與北約的盟友並未以其對香港的立場站起來，因為他們擔心北京會限制中國市場的准入。這種膽怯會導致歷史性的失敗，我們無法重複。

我們不能重複過去幾年的錯誤。中國面臨的挑戰要求民主國家發揮作用和精力，民主國家包括歐洲，非洲，南美，尤其是印度太平洋地區。

而且，如果我們現在不採取行動，那麼中共最終將侵蝕我們的自由，並顛覆我們的社會努力建立的基於法規的秩序。如果我們現在屈膝，我們孩子的孩子可能會受到中國共產黨的擺佈，中國共產黨的行動是當今自由世界中的主要挑戰。

習近平總書記註定不會永遠在中國內外施暴，除非我們允許

現在，這與圍堵無關。不要相信這策略。這是我們從未遇到過的複雜的新挑戰。蘇聯與自由世界隔絕了。共產主義中國已經在我們的邊界之內。

因此，我們不能獨自面對這一挑戰。聯合國，北約，七國集團國家，二十國集團，我們的經濟，外交和軍事力量合力，如果我們清楚明確地並勇往直前，無疑足以應付這一挑戰。

也許是時候讓志趣相投的國家組成一個新的團體，一個新的民主國家聯盟了。

我們有工具。我知道我們可以做到。現在我們需要意志。引用聖經經文，我問“要警醒禱告，免得陷入試探。你們心靈雖然願意，肉體卻是軟弱的。”

如果自由世界沒有改變 —沒有改變，共產主義中國一定會改變我們。無法因為舒適或便利而返回到過去的做法。

確保我們脫離中國共產黨的自由是我們這個時代的使命，而美國完全有能力領導它，

因為我們的建國原則為我們提供了這一機會。正如我上週在費城站立時所看到的那樣，注視著獨立廳，我們的國家建立在所有人類都擁有不可剝奪的某些權利的前提下。

確保這些權利是我們政府的工作。這是一個簡單而有力的真理。它使我們成為全世界人民的自由燈塔，包括中國境內的人。

確實，尼克遜在1967年寫道“除非中國改變，否則世界是不安全的”是正確的。現在我們該聽他的話了。

今天的危機已經明確了。

今天，覺醒正在發生。

今天，自由世界必須作出回應。

我們永遠無法回到過去。

願上帝保佑你們每個人。

願上帝保佑中國人民。＇

願上帝保佑美利堅合眾國人民。

謝謝你們。（掌聲）

Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you, Governor, for that very, very generous introduction. It is true: When you walk in that gym and you say the name “Pompeo,” there is a whisper. I had a brother, Mark, who was really good – a really good basketball player.
And how about another round of applause for the Blue Eagles Honor Guard and Senior Airman Kayla Highsmith, and her wonderful rendition of the national anthem? (Applause.)
Thank you, too, to Pastor Laurie for that moving prayer, and I want to thank Hugh Hewitt and the Nixon Foundation for your invitation to speak at this important American institution. It was great to be sung to by an Air Force person, introduced by a Marine, and they let the Army guy in in front of the Navy guy’s house. (Laughter.) It’s all good.
It’s an honor to be here in Yorba Linda, where Nixon’s father built the house in which he was born and raised.
To all the Nixon Center board and staff who made today possible – it’s difficult in these times – thanks for making this day possible for me and for my team.
We are blessed to have some incredibly special people in the audience, including Chris, who I’ve gotten to know – Chris Nixon. I also want to thank Tricia Nixon and Julie Nixon Eisenhower for their support of this visit as well.
I want to recognize several courageous Chinese dissidents who have joined us here today and made a long trip.
And to all the other distinguished guests – (applause) – to all the other distinguished guests, thank you for being here. For those of you who got under the tent, you must have paid extra.
And those of you watching live, thank you for tuning in.
And finally, as the governor mentioned, I was born here in Santa Ana, not very far from here. I’ve got my sister and her husband in the audience today. Thank you all for coming out. I bet you never thought that I’d be standing up here.
My remarks today are the fourth set of remarks in a series of China speeches that I asked National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, FBI Director Chris Wray, and the Attorney General Barr to deliver alongside me.
We had a very clear purpose, a real mission. It was to explain the different facets of America’s relationship with China, the massive imbalances in that relationship that have built up over decades, and the Chinese Communist Party’s designs for hegemony.
Our goal was to make clear that the threats to Americans that President Trump’s China policy aims to address are clear and our strategy for securing those freedoms established.
Ambassador O’Brien spoke about ideology. FBI Director Wray talked about espionage. Attorney General Barr spoke about economics. And now my goal today is to put it all together for the American people and detail what the China threat means for our economy, for our liberty, and indeed for the future of free democracies around the world.
Next year marks half a century since Dr. Kissinger’s secret mission to China, and the 50th anniversary of President Nixon’s trip isn’t too far away in 2022.
The world was much different then.
We imagined engagement with China would produce a future with bright promise of comity and cooperation.
But today – today we’re all still wearing masks and watching the pandemic’s body count rise because the CCP failed in its promises to the world. We’re reading every morning new headlines of repression in Hong Kong and in Xinjiang.
We’re seeing staggering statistics of Chinese trade abuses that cost American jobs and strike enormous blows to the economies all across America, including here in southern California. And we’re watching a Chinese military that grows stronger and stronger, and indeed more menacing.
I’ll echo the questions ringing in the hearts and minds of Americans from here in California to my home state of Kansas and beyond:
What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?
Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?
Is this China’s definition of a win-win situation?
And indeed, centrally, from the Secretary of State’s perspective, is America safer? Do we have a greater likelihood of peace for ourselves and peace for the generations which will follow us?
Look, we have to admit a hard truth. We must admit a hard truth that should guide us in the years and decades to come, that if we want to have a free 21st century, and not the Chinese century of which Xi Jinping dreams, the old paradigm of blind engagement with China simply won’t get it done. We must not continue it and we must not return to it.
As President Trump has made very clear, we need a strategy that protects the American economy, and indeed our way of life. The free world must triumph over this new tyranny.
Now, before I seem too eager to tear down President Nixon’s legacy, I want to be clear that he did what he believed was best for the American people at the time, and he may well have been right.
He was a brilliant student of China, a fierce cold warrior, and a tremendous admirer of the Chinese people, just as I think we all are.
He deserves enormous credit for realizing that China was too important to be ignored, even when the nation was weakened because of its own self-inflicted communist brutality.
In 1967, in a very famous Foreign Affairs article, Nixon explained his future strategy. Here’s what he said:
He said, “Taking the long view, we simply cannot afford to leave China forever outside of the family of nations…The world cannot be safe until China changes. Thus, our aim – to the extent we can, we must influence events. Our goal should be to induce change.”
And I think that’s the key phrase from the entire article: “to induce change.”
So, with that historic trip to Beijing, President Nixon kicked off our engagement strategy. He nobly sought a freer and safer world, and he hoped that the Chinese Communist Party would return that commitment.
As time went on, American policymakers increasingly presumed that as China became more prosperous, it would open up, it would become freer at home, and indeed present less of a threat abroad, it’d be friendlier. It all seemed, I am sure, so inevitable.
But that age of inevitability is over. The kind of engagement we have been pursuing has not brought the kind of change inside of China that President Nixon had hoped to induce.
The truth is that our policies – and those of other free nations – resurrected China’s failing economy, only to see Beijing bite the international hands that were feeding it.
We opened our arms to Chinese citizens, only to see the Chinese Communist Party exploit our free and open society. China sent propagandists into our press conferences, our research centers, our high-schools, our colleges, and even into our PTA meetings.
We marginalized our friends in Taiwan, which later blossomed into a vigorous democracy.
We gave the Chinese Communist Party and the regime itself special economic treatment, only to see the CCP insist on silence over its human rights abuses as the price of admission for Western companies entering China.
Ambassador O’Brien ticked off a few examples just the other day: Marriott, American Airlines, Delta, United all removed references to Taiwan from their corporate websites, so as not to anger Beijing.
In Hollywood, not too far from here – the epicenter of American creative freedom, and self-appointed arbiters of social justice – self-censors even the most mildly unfavorable reference to China.
This corporate acquiescence to the CCP happens all over the world, too.
And how has this corporate fealty worked? Is its flattery rewarded? I’ll give you a quote from the speech that General Barr gave, Attorney General Barr. In a speech last week, he said that “The ultimate ambition of China’s rulers isn’t to trade with the United States. It is to raid the United States.”
China ripped off our prized intellectual property and trade secrets, causing millions of jobs[1] all across America.
It sucked supply chains away from America, and then added a widget made of slave labor.
It made the world’s key waterways less safe for international commerce.
President Nixon once said he feared he had created a “Frankenstein” by opening the world to the CCP, and here we are.
Now, people of good faith can debate why free nations allowed these bad things to happen for all these years. Perhaps we were naive about China’s virulent strain of communism, or triumphalist after our victory in the Cold War, or cravenly capitalist, or hoodwinked by Beijing’s talk of a “peaceful rise.”
Whatever the reason – whatever the reason, today China is increasingly authoritarian at home, and more aggressive in its hostility to freedom everywhere else.
And President Trump has said: enough.
I don’t think many people on either side of the aisle dispute the facts that I have laid out today. But even now, some are insisting that we preserve the model of dialogue for dialogue’s sake.
Now, to be clear, we’ll keep on talking. But the conversations are different these days. I traveled to Honolulu now just a few weeks back to meet with Yang Jiechi.
It was the same old story – plenty of words, but literally no offer to change any of the behaviors.
Yang’s promises, like so many the CCP made before him, were empty. His expectations, I surmise, were that I’d cave to their demands, because frankly this is what too many prior administrations have done. I didn’t, and President Trump will not either.
As Ambassador O’Brien explained so well, we have to keep in mind that the CCP regime is a Marxist-Leninist regime. General Secretary Xi Jinping is a true believer in a bankrupt totalitarian ideology.
It’s this ideology, it’s this ideology that informs his decades-long desire for global hegemony of Chinese communism. America can no longer ignore the fundamental political and ideological differences between our countries, just as the CCP has never ignored them.
My experience in the House Intelligence Committee, and then as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and my now two-plus years as America’s Secretary of State have led me to this central understanding:
That the only way – the only way to truly change communist China is to act not on the basis of what Chinese leaders say, but how they behave. And you can see American policy responding to this conclusion. President Reagan said that he dealt with the Soviet Union on the basis of “trust but verify.” When it comes to the CCP, I say we must distrust and verify. (Applause.)
We, the freedom-loving nations of the world, must induce China to change, just as President Nixon wanted. We must induce China to change in more creative and assertive ways, because Beijing’s actions threaten our people and our prosperity.
We must start by changing how our people and our partners perceive the Chinese Communist Party. We have to tell the truth. We can’t treat this incarnation of China as a normal country, just like any other.
We know that trading with China is not like trading with a normal, law-abiding nation. Beijing threatens international agreements as – treats international suggestions as – or agreements as suggestions, as conduits for global dominance.
But by insisting on fair terms, as our trade representative did when he secured our phase one trade deal, we can force China to reckon with its intellectual property theft and policies that harmed American workers.
We know too that doing business with a CCP-backed company is not the same as doing business with, say, a Canadian company. They don’t answer to independent boards, and many of them are state-sponsored and so have no need to pursue profits.
A good example is Huawei. We stopped pretending Huawei is an innocent telecommunications company that’s just showing up to make sure you can talk to your friends. We’ve called it what it is – a true national security threat – and we’ve taken action accordingly.
We know too that if our companies invest in China, they may wittingly or unwittingly support the Communist Party’s gross human rights violations.
Our Departments of Treasury and Commerce have thus sanctioned and blacklisted Chinese leaders and entities that are harming and abusing the most basic rights for people all across the world. Several agencies have worked together on a business advisory to make certain our CEOs are informed of how their supply chains are behaving inside of China.
We know too, we know too that not all Chinese students and employees are just normal students and workers that are coming here to make a little bit of money and to garner themselves some knowledge. Too many of them come here to steal our intellectual property and to take this back to their country.
The Department of Justice and other agencies have vigorously pursued punishment for these crimes.
We know that the People’s Liberation Army is not a normal army, too. Its purpose is to uphold the absolute rule of the Chinese Communist Party elites and expand a Chinese empire, not to protect the Chinese people.
And so our Department of Defense has ramped up its efforts, freedom of navigation operations out and throughout the East and South China Seas, and in the Taiwan Strait as well. And we’ve created a Space Force to help deter China from aggression on that final frontier.
And so too, frankly, we’ve built out a new set of policies at the State Department dealing with China, pushing President Trump’s goals for fairness and reciprocity, to rewrite the imbalances that have grown over decades.
Just this week, we announced the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston because it was a hub of spying and intellectual property theft. (Applause.)
We reversed, two weeks ago, eight years of cheek-turning with respect to international law in the South China Sea.
We’ve called on China to conform its nuclear capabilities to the strategic realities of our time.
And the State Department – at every level, all across the world – has engaged with our Chinese counterparts simply to demand fairness and reciprocity.
But our approach can’t just be about getting tough. That’s unlikely to achieve the outcome that we desire. We must also engage and empower the Chinese people – a dynamic, freedom-loving people who are completely distinct from the Chinese Communist Party.
That begins with in-person diplomacy. (Applause.) I’ve met Chinese men and women of great talent and diligence wherever I go.
I’ve met with Uyghurs and ethnic Kazakhs who escaped Xinjiang’s concentration camps. I’ve talked with Hong Kong’s democracy leaders, from Cardinal Zen to Jimmy Lai. Two days ago in London, I met with Hong Kong freedom fighter Nathan Law.
And last month in my office, I heard the stories of Tiananmen Square survivors. One of them is here today.
Wang Dan was a key student who has never stopped fighting for freedom for the Chinese people. Mr. Wang, will you please stand so that we may recognize you? (Applause.)
Also with us today is the father of the Chinese democracy movement, Wei Jingsheng. He spent decades in Chinese labor camps for his advocacy. Mr. Wei, will you please stand? (Applause.)
I grew up and served my time in the Army during the Cold War. And if there is one thing I learned, communists almost always lie. The biggest lie that they tell is to think that they speak for 1.4 billion people who are surveilled, oppressed, and scared to speak out.
Quite the contrary. The CCP fears the Chinese people’s honest opinions more than any foe, and save for losing their own grip on power, they have reason – no reason to.
Just think how much better off the world would be – not to mention the people inside of China – if we had been able to hear from the doctors in Wuhan and they’d been allowed to raise the alarm about the outbreak of a new and novel virus.
For too many decades, our leaders have ignored, downplayed the words of brave Chinese dissidents who warned us about the nature of the regime we’re facing.
And we can’t ignore it any longer. They know as well as anyone that we can never go back to the status quo.
But changing the CCP’s behavior cannot be the mission of the Chinese people alone. Free nations have to work to defend freedom. It’s the furthest thing from easy.
But I have faith we can do it. I have faith because we’ve done it before. We know how this goes.
I have faith because the CCP is repeating some of the same mistakes that the Soviet Union made – alienating potential allies, breaking trust at home and abroad, rejecting property rights and predictable rule of law.
I have faith. I have faith because of the awakening I see among other nations that know we can’t go back to the past in the same way that we do here in America. I’ve heard this from Brussels, to Sydney, to Hanoi.
And most of all, I have faith we can defend freedom because of the sweet appeal of freedom itself.
Look at the Hong Kongers clamoring to emigrate abroad as the CCP tightens its grip on that proud city. They wave American flags.
It’s true, there are differences. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is deeply integrated into the global economy. But Beijing is more dependent on us than we are on them. (Applause.)
Look, I reject the notion that we’re living in an age of inevitability, that some trap is pre-ordained, that CCP supremacy is the future. Our approach isn’t destined to fail because America is in decline. As I said in Munich earlier this year, the free world is still winning. We just need to believe it and know it and be proud of it. People from all over the world still want to come to open societies. They come here to study, they come here to work, they come here to build a life for their families. They’re not desperate to settle in China.
It’s time. It’s great to be here today. The timing is perfect. It’s time for free nations to act. Not every nation will approach China in the same way, nor should they. Every nation will have to come to its own understanding of how to protect its own sovereignty, how to protect its own economic prosperity, and how to protect its ideals from the tentacles of the Chinese Communist Party.
But I call on every leader of every nation to start by doing what America has done – to simply insist on reciprocity, to insist on transparency and accountability from the Chinese Communist Party. It’s a cadre of rulers that are far from homogeneous.
And these simple and powerful standards will achieve a great deal. For too long we let the CCP set the terms of engagement, but no longer. Free nations must set the tone. We must operate on the same principles.
We have to draw common lines in the sand that cannot be washed away by the CCP’s bargains or their blandishments. Indeed, this is what the United States did recently when we rejected China’s unlawful claims in the South China Sea once and for all, as we have urged countries to become Clean Countries so that their citizens’ private information doesn’t end up in the hand of the Chinese Communist Party. We did it by setting standards.
Now, it’s true, it’s difficult. It’s difficult for some small countries. They fear being picked off. Some of them for that reason simply don’t have the ability, the courage to stand with us for the moment.
Indeed, we have a NATO ally of ours that hasn’t stood up in the way that it needs to with respect to Hong Kong because they fear Beijing will restrict access to China’s market. This is the kind of timidity that will lead to historic failure, and we can’t repeat it.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of these past years. The challenge of China demands exertion, energy from democracies – those in Europe, those in Africa, those in South America, and especially those in the Indo-Pacific region.
And if we don’t act now, ultimately the CCP will erode our freedoms and subvert the rules-based order that our societies have worked so hard to build. If we bend the knee now, our children’s children may be at the mercy of the Chinese Communist Party, whose actions are the primary challenge today in the free world.
General Secretary Xi is not destined to tyrannize inside and outside of China forever, unless we allow it.
Now, this isn’t about containment. Don’t buy that. It’s about a complex new challenge that we’ve never faced before. The USSR was closed off from the free world. Communist China is already within our borders.
So we can’t face this challenge alone. The United Nations, NATO, the G7 countries, the G20, our combined economic, diplomatic, and military power is surely enough to meet this challenge if we direct it clearly and with great courage.
Maybe it’s time for a new grouping of like-minded nations, a new alliance of democracies.
We have the tools. I know we can do it. Now we need the will. To quote scripture, I ask is “our spirit willing but our flesh weak?”
If the free world doesn’t change – doesn’t change, communist China will surely change us. There can’t be a return to the past practices because they’re comfortable or because they’re convenient.
Securing our freedoms from the Chinese Communist Party is the mission of our time, and America is perfectly positioned to lead it because our founding principles give us that opportunity.
As I explained in Philadelphia last week, standing, staring at Independence Hall, our nation was founded on the premise that all human beings possess certain rights that are unalienable.
And it’s our government’s job to secure those rights. It is a simple and powerful truth. It’s made us a beacon of freedom for people all around the world, including people inside of China.
Indeed, Richard Nixon was right when he wrote in 1967 that “the world cannot be safe until China changes.” Now it’s up to us to heed his words.
Today the danger is clear.
And today the awakening is happening.
Today the free world must respond.
We can never go back to the past.
May God bless each of you.
May God bless the Chinese people.
And may God bless the people of the United States of America.
Thank you all.
(Applause.)

張娟芬專欄：亡國感的逆襲

🔗 https://www.upmedia.mg/news_info.php?SerialNo=75174
🌻 本文作者張娟芬參與社會運動多年，關心性別、司法、人權等議題，著有《姊妹戲牆》、《愛的自由式》、《無彩青春》、《走進泥巴國》、《殺戮的艱難》、《十三姨KTV殺人事件》等書。德國漢堡大學犯罪學博士。
#分享
———（以下內文）————

「亡國感」，目前為止我們對它所知不多。它起於PTT，如果去查Google Trend，會發現「亡國感」首次在搜索引擎裡占有一席之地，是二〇一九年三月二十四日到三十一日這一週。三月二十四日發生的大事，是高雄市長韓國瑜進中聯辦。這個人在一片紅色疑慮之中贏得選舉，當選之夜即高調宣布支持九二共識。九二共識是什麼呢？二〇一九年一月二日之後，已無疑義：中國領導人習近平的講話，將九二共識與一國兩制緊緊縫合，要把臺灣統一在中華人民共和國之下。韓國瑜上任未及三月，立即出訪香港，這個一國兩制的示範地；並且走進了中聯辦，「中央人民政府駐香港特別行政區聯絡辦公室」，就是中華人民共和國在香港的一國兩制指揮中心。他事前沒有向陸委會報備，事後拒絕透露與中聯辦的聯繫經過與會商內容。就在這一串新聞事件裡，「亡國感」出現了。

流行語大抵如此：一聽就懂，心領神會，拿來就用；很快的，大家都琅琅上口了。在這個喜歡玩弄同音異字、以訛傳訛的大遊戲年代，「亡國感」又異變為更加俏皮的「芒果乾」。這樣的「亡國感」當然不可能有什麼定於一尊的標準定義，而反映了一種集體情緒。



#潛規則：我們要看對岸的臉色

二〇一九年初當我決定開設「臺灣前途與中國因素」這門課時，驅動的力量也來自一種當時還無以名之的焦慮。這原不是我的守備範圍，但我感覺到我們視為理所當然的民主生活，已經面臨毀壞的危機。對政治略有參與的公民應當早已習慣，民主經常是警鈴大作的。可是，中國的攻勢從「九二共識」到「一國兩制」，已經又逼近了一步，半島電視臺臥底採訪所揭露的中國滲透手法與深入程度，更是觸目驚心。我不禁自問，這是不是臺灣民主的最後一個警訊？

第一堂課，我放導演鄭有傑二〇一一年的短片，《潛規則》。一組人準備拍電影，外景選在一個學校操場的司令臺。但是導演看起來又愁又怒，原來司令臺的背景是好大一面國旗。美術說，「我避不掉。」導演說，「到時候片子賣不進去怎麼辦？」最後，最資淺的工作人員拿來鐵撬，大家合力將那塊國旗背板撬下，在國旗歌聲中，工作人員歡喜大喊：「要——倒——了——！」

當那個國家象徵轟然倒下，只見導演兩眼發直，面部肌肉不自主抽搐，好像快要中風。背板後的牆面久未經日照，顯得有點蒼白。那裡畫著一面巨幅秋海棠，上面寫著「三民主義統一中國」。

我問：「『潛規則』到底是什麼？明白地用語言把它說出來。」毫不扭捏的，第一個答案就直指核心：「我們要看對岸臉色。」

對。就這麼簡單。

「潛規則是誰訂的？」

這個問題的答案就比較糊了，有人說是自願的，有人說是歷史與市場造成的，有人說也可以不要遵守啊。其實這注定是一個模糊的回答，因為根本就沒人知道誰制訂的。

我再問：「潛規則與法律或政策有何不同？」

「法律的話，感覺遵守法律跟制訂法律的人仍然是平等的。可是潛規則感覺是下對上的，要一直去猜測那個規則，想要討好在上位的人。」一個學生說，法律非遵守不可，潛規則卻有選擇的空間。另一個說：法律寫在那裡，可以去鑽它的漏洞，但是潛規則卻逃不開，因為不知道究竟是什麼。第三個人自動出面整合了雙方的論點：「法律之所以能鑽漏洞，是因為它很明確地寫在那裡，邊界很清楚，所以知道從哪裡鑽過去。潛規則逃不開，是因為它很模糊，也沒人把它講清楚，所以就算一個人選擇要服從潛規則，也可能逃不開。」我說：「對啊，就像小熊維尼，他本來是個卡通人物，結果不知道什麼時候開始，他變敏感了。」


如此討論一輪，潛規則漸漸現形：它不經民主程序、冤無頭債無主，因此無法修正、無法討價還價，卻有著貨真價實的影響力。短片裡說得很明白，不避掉國旗的話，電影就進不了中國市場。電影這麼燒錢的產業，要不顧慮市場，實在挺難的。拍了背景有國旗的戲並不會被抓去關，但是會血本無歸，這使他們決定趨吉避凶，遵守潛規則。

這部短片，距今八年。那時候，「不能出現國旗」還是低調、委婉、檯面下的原則，業界人士知道，但心照不宣。近年的潛規則已經不再低調了，要周子瑜、戴立忍公開道歉，都是刻意張揚的霸凌，目的是殺一儆百，唯恐你不知道！潛規則就是對於中華民國的各種政治象徵全面獵殺，是中國對臺灣的政治審查。

如果你參與某個活動，被警察抓走，然後從高處墜落，或者從海裡浮起，但一律以「無他殺嫌疑」迅速結案；我們知道這是政治。這裡面有國家動用的公權力，有壓迫者、有受害者。潛規則看起來卻不是這樣，它看起像「個人選擇」、「市場機制」、「你自己願意的」；「不爽不要做啊，不爽不要來啊！」潛規則用的是經濟手段，國家公權力僅隱身其後，讓事情看起來不是「壓迫者欺負受害者」，而是「一個願打一個願挨」；也就是用經濟手段來掩護其政治本質。

《潛規則》為「中國因素」下了一個很好的注腳。所謂「中國因素」就是：臺灣的許多事情，是被中國「決定」的。其「決定」的方式，不一定是用政治影響，也可能是用經濟。

但是，為什麼？臺灣的事情，不是應該用民主的方式決定嗎？

「亡國感」這個集體情緒，它的核心就是這一句提問。臺灣的事情，為什麼不是用民主的方式決定？為什麼是由一個我們從未授權也無法影響的政權來決定？那民主算什麼？我們算什麼？

#什麼是我們不可或缺的民主食材

我在「臺灣前途與中國因素」的課堂用了一款簡易遊戲「Democracy Cake」，由挪威的人權組織RAFTO（Rafto Foundation for Human Rights）設計研發、中原大學徐偉群教授引進，他很有創意地將這遊戲譯為「民主雞蛋糕」。每一組發一個蛋糕盤，然後提供二十幾種民主的「食材」，例如「言論自由」、「資訊公開透明」、「多元媒體」、「司法機關」、「立法機關」、「自由公平的選舉」、「公民投票」、「反歧視的法律」、「社會福利」、「正當程序」、「宗教與信仰自由」、「隱私權」等等。學生的任務就是用這些東西來建立自己的「民主雞蛋糕」。

一桌子食材，看起來都像好東西，但是蛋糕盤只放得下六片蛋糕。協商與爭辯自不可少，但他們考慮的因素是什麼？一位學生寫道：「在選擇良心食材時不論哪一項都非常難以取捨，突然有個念頭覺得我們過得其實很幸福，這些食材其實圍繞著我們四周，或許臺灣民主仍然有其進步、改善空間，但大抵來說我們過的很自由，自由到這些食材像是理所當然就該存在的，像是天賦的，捨棄哪一塊都怪彆扭的。」

另一位學生說：「這些良心食材，每一個現在看起來都好簡單，在我們的生活中其實就像呼吸一般自然；可是真要選六個來堅守，又尤其一想到我們很有可能將在之後失去這些權利，就更要選得戰戰兢兢。」

真的戰戰兢兢，我看著他們把一片片蛋糕放上盤子，又拿下來。「每一個食材在被丟棄的同時，總是會有人提出在臺灣過往經驗中遇到缺乏此食材的恐怖情況，最後食材又會被順利救回。其實我很慶幸大家對於臺灣歷史的認識較深，讓討論變得更加有意義，但也覺得很困擾，因為這樣每個食材都變得非常重要，就無法選出最重要的六個食材。」綜合討論時，有一組幽幽地說：「我們想要做一個三層的蛋糕！」


這是在桌遊與手遊中長大的世代，在高解析度影像中長大的世代。一款珍珠板貼上彩色紙的陽春遊戲，卻讓他們認真到產生選擇障礙，因為他們已經意識到，這些東西「之後可能會失去」。

可以想見，「立法機關」、「司法機關」、「言論自由」、「自由與公平的選舉」等等，是很受歡迎的食材。但有一組出人意表地選了「社會福利」。據說那是蛋糕盤上的最後一個空位，一位組員唸出「社會福利」卡片背面的定義：「政府應促成全面的支持系統，以確保人民能擁有健康、接受教育、經濟穩定」，真誠地看著大家說：「我覺得這就是民主制度的初衷。我認為有社會福利，才會成為一個有愛的國家。」那想必是莊嚴的一刻，全組的人都感動了。一位組員寫道：「原本還在爭論效益或結構的組員都同時安靜下來，神情從冷靜理性轉為溫柔，最後大家一致通過，將社福列入食材。」另一位組員瀟灑地總結：「社會福利是討論後決定釋出的立場，即便在層級上是較後期的目標。但理想是不必害羞的。」

建立民主雞蛋糕只是第一階段。遊戲卡裡也有幾十個對民主的攻擊，我稱為「黑心食材」，例如「政府監控」、「言論審查」、「選舉詐欺」、「歧視」等等。第二階段的玩法是請同學運用他的民主雞蛋糕裡的六個成分，來抵擋這些「黑心食材」。這個民主遊戲來自北歐，難免有隔靴搔癢之處，因此我根據臺灣處境的特殊性，另外加了三個臺灣版的「黑心食材」：「以商逼政」、「資訊戰」與「非官方談判締約」。太過切身了，同學說看到這三項，「腦袋抽痛了一下」。

面對攻擊，無力與挫折全部都跑出來了。「訊息戰、以商逼政、非官方締約一出現，瞬間就擊潰我們所有的良心食材，除了立法和司法，我們別無他法，而且還遠不及打壓這些早已滲透到民間的黑心食材，玩到最後大家都想放棄民主了。有一組說『用所有的黑心食材都可以對付這些東西』，我覺得好衝擊，確實這些大家這麼用力抵抗的不民主的『惡勢力』不斷逼近，為什麼我們還要堅守民主？常常自己在思考的時候也會這麼質疑。」

「我們拿著良心食材想要拼湊出防禦姿態，但卻發現這該怎麼擋？怎麼擋都有漏洞……我們拿著良心食材去對抗這些邪惡，突然感覺像是天安門事件那最令大家印象深刻的一幕：『肉身抵擋坦克』。」

有一位同學想起了我在課堂上放的紀錄片，李惠仁導演的《蘋果的滋味》。「記得那時看完中嘉併購案的片段後感受到的是一股很重的無力感，即便我們獲得了資訊卻無能為力，在面對這三個中國因素的問題時我也感受到了一樣的無力。我開始回想紀錄片裡的中嘉併購案，當時有一群人發起了抗爭活動，雖然並沒有受到大媒體的關注，但那股力量是由人民的憤怒而起的，而那也正是我們最能夠直接參與的，也就是集會自由。」

「把所有良心食材一併加進來之後，好像還是遠不及抵禦黑心食材的進攻，真的令人非常絕望。可是，其實上這堂課的同學都是盟友吧？自己想不出辦法，那就大家一起想，總會有辦法……雖然亡國感並沒有減少一絲，但是對於自己所捍衛的價值有了更深的認識，我知道我想說話、想當好國好民、想在政府底下擁有人權，所以即使我堅信的民主力量遠小於獨裁，我們還是得團結一致對抗。」

#向內擠壓的委屈中蓄積著向外爆發的能量

這是我對於「亡國感」的體察。在他們臉上，我讀到對民主的珍惜：每一塊「蛋糕」都不想放棄，因為認識到每一塊都重要。我讀到對於民主的深刻思考：我請他們說說各組的雞蛋糕成分有何異同，其中一組解釋，他們沒有選「社會福利」、「隱私權」、「受教權」，因為「我們盼望良善的立法、司法體制，和言論自由能帶給公民的民主素養，自然會發展出這些項目」。在有限的蛋糕盤裡，他們沒有選擇某一些，是因為那些可以從更為基本的元素推導而得；這些食材在他們眼中不是獨立存在的原料而已，他們已經想到了彼此之間的連動關係。他們對民主的認識，不只是知道氯是什麼、鈉是什麼，而且知道氯加上鈉會變成一種讓食物好吃的調味料，如果將氫、氧和鈉加在一起，則可以用來做肥皂或通水管。

我也讀到擔憂、挫折、無力、絕望……與不甘願。還不願意投降或放棄的那種不甘願。這些情緒看似矛盾：擔憂、挫折、無力、絕望都是坐以待斃，不甘願卻是起身反抗。但如同前述兩段引文所示，這相反方向的兩種情緒，可以共存於同一個人的同一段表述。「亡國感」似乎不是一個單一向度的感受，它不僅是字面上看起來的被動、放棄、不作為而已；在向內擠壓的委屈之中，向外爆發的憤怒在蓄積。作用力產生反作用力，「亡國感」的內裡，有一個想要「逆襲」的驅力。

#亡國感真正悼亡的對象為何

值得追問的是，「亡國感」的悼亡對象為何？有人說，醒醒吧，你沒有國家，哪來亡國感？這是所謂臺獨。有人說，容納我們民主生活的，是中華民國臺灣，不管它叫什麼名字，它就是我的國家。這是所謂華獨。「亡國感」是哪一種？

在同學的作業裡，「國」的問題鮮少被提起。兩千年左右出生的這一世代，成長於全球化的年代，國界已不似先前那樣銅牆鐵壁，他們對國族的情感與看法，恐怕很難用黑白分明的「非此即彼」來劃分。有的人幼年在中國長大，因為父母是臺商，中國和臺灣都是他的故鄉。有的人曾經在中國就學，有的人固定往返中國，因為父母之一是中國人。有的人擁有臺灣以外的其他國籍。有的人是新移民之子。有的人認真在評估，畢業後要不要去中國找工作。一位同學表達得很好：「對這個時代的年輕人來說，『國』是一個太難解的概念。臺灣史獨立成冊了，但我們的國名裡沒有這兩個字。」他們拒絕中國因素，並不是因為對中國有敵意，也不是因為對中國欠缺瞭解，而是因為臺灣有民主，中國沒有，他們從自己的經驗知道，臺灣的生活才是有尊嚴的人的生活。

國族主義最需警戒的，不外乎兩點，其一是身分的排他性，其二是它經常召喚個體為國家犧牲。「亡國感」雖然有這個「國」字，卻很難被界定為一種國族主義的情感動員，因為「亡國感」的話題總是環繞著「民主」這個概念，而非「國族」；有亡國感的人總說著民主機制的毀壞，以及如何可以重建、強化。他們並不想像一個圍牆高聳的國族共同體，要入會得經過嚴格的血統審查——他們自己原不是血統純正的人。民主的原則是盡可能讓大家都享有公民權利（inclusive citizenship），而非排除他人；民主的政府採取三權分立，從人民的立場來避免國家侵犯基本人權。「亡國感」是朝向民主前去的，而國族主義（的最糟形式），在它的反方向。

有解嚴前生活經驗的人，應該都還記得那種「亡國感」：「今日不做自由的鬥士，明日就成海上的難民」、「生於憂患死於安樂」、「退一步即無死所」；那些國慶閱兵、晚會、排字、大會操、軍歌比賽，講究「數大便是美」、「整齊畫一」、「一個口令一個動作」，那些「萬眾一心」、「我愛中華」一遍又一遍的呼喊……是的，那些活動就是國族主義（的最糟形式），要你犧牲小我完成大我，要你為自己做為一個小螺絲釘而感動，要你團結，要你愛國，要你支持政府。那種亡國感絕對不容許你談多黨政治、民主制衡、基本人權；甚至你只是要求國會全面改選，他都說這樣會亡國。是的，那種亡國感就是賣弄國族主義的威權統治手法。

今日的「亡國感」是那種手法的反方向。君不見，「亡國感很重」的年輕人總是好想突破同溫層，好想跟長輩溝通，為了自己在乎的議題狂寫臉書，去捷運站之類的熱鬧地方當小蜜蜂，收集連署，製作短片丟上網，用無窮無盡的公民參與去實踐民主。

「亡國感」的「悼亡」對象，不是任何一國，而是民主。「亡國感」只是一個現成的詞語，方便溝通。他總不能說：「啊，我最近『亡民主感』好重！」這樣誰聽得懂？說「亡國感」，雖不精確，卻一聽就懂。遂成流行。

「亡國感」甚至不是一種悼亡。不是一種現在式或者過去式的哀嘆：「我們已經亡國了，好慘啊！」而是未來式，一種警世明言：「再這樣下去我們的民主會完蛋的！所以我們現在——」。「亡國感」不是句點，而是起手勢，重點總在於，為了不要讓現在還享有的可愛的自由消失，我們現在趕快來做點什麼？


亡國感是真實的集體情緒，源自民主於近年因中國因素持續惡化的事實；這件事情在選舉中成為影響因素之一，本是民意政治的正常狀態。（攝影：蔣銀珊）

這是藝術大學裡的一堂通識課，學生的主修是電影、戲劇、動畫、美術、音樂、傳統音樂、劇場設計、新媒體藝術，他們本來不是對政治特別有興趣的人。但是，對民主的珍惜與體會，在這個歷史時刻變得巨大而急切，因為他們感到，「以後可能會失去」。所謂「這個歷史時刻」，就是中國積極向外輸出專制影響力的這一段時間，就是中國因素滲入臺灣骨髓的時刻。

有人擔心，亡國感是政治操作，或者將在總統大選中成為政治操作的議題。其實民意政治的基本原理極為簡單，就是民眾把自己擔心的事情大聲說出來，而候選人想辦法說服民眾：我可以解決這個問題，你投給我別擔心。亡國感是真實的集體情緒，源自民主於近年因中國因素持續惡化的事實；這件事情在選舉中成為影響因素之一，本是民意政治的正常狀態。所有重要議題，都應該是選舉的影響因素啊。誰積極反對九二共識、反對一國兩制、反對和平協議，誰就會獲得「亡國感」一族的青睞。背離民心者在選舉中落敗，本是選舉制度的設計初心。

「#有錢就有自由」，只有在民主國家才會是天理

課堂上也有另一種意見，是不打算捍衛民主的。有一位同學寫道：「我認為臺灣的兩黨惡鬥，不太會像是民主的在進步，而是在濫用，那要民主有什麼用？我個人會覺得專制體制會更讓我們的經濟往上升起，讓我們的國家成為世界強國，那我在想的是保持著民主有什麼用呢？我個人會覺得有了麵包才能夠談這些之後的生活限制，那你有錢了不喜歡極權專制，那移民就好了啊！何必因為為了保持民主，而讓我們全國人民都快餓死，那維持民主功效在哪？」

他的意思是先拚經濟，有錢了就有自由，因為有錢就可以移民，可以任意選擇要當哪一國人。這推論裡有幾個關乎事實的環節，值得拆解檢視。其一是他認為只有專制才能拚經濟，民主不能；其二是他認為臺灣的經濟現況是大家都快要餓死；其三是他認為專制並不危及人民移民的自由。這也就是常見的「民主不能當飯吃」的說法。他很禮貌地寫說希望聽聽老師的看法，所以我在課堂上仔細提出事實的說明，不過，那堂課他並沒有出席，此後也沒有再見到他。

這位同學理所當然地覺得「有錢了就有自由」，好像那是天理。那恰好是因為他在民主的制度裡長大，習慣了這種民主框架裡的資本邏輯。在專制國家，那才不是天理。專制國家的人都知道，自由是國家的恩賜特許，而不是權利。他可能不知道，他恰好選擇了一個他最不能接受的制度。小魚也覺得用鰓呼吸是天理，你既是一條小魚，為什麼要跳上岸來呢？

#世界原不存在一個寫定的未來

以上是我從「臺灣前途與中國因素」的課堂上，捕捉到的「亡國感」的面貌：在中國因素影響下，因為感受到可能會失去民主自由，而產生的一種既無力又亟欲奮力一搏的集體情緒；「亡國感」本身就蘊含了「逆襲」的能量。


這門課到六月時接近尾聲，那卻是香港抗議「逃犯條例」的開端。我清楚記得當時，各界一致認為「逃犯條例」一定會過，包括上街抗爭的人。大家平心靜氣地「知道」香港立法會的生態就是那樣，平心靜氣地「知道」不可能贏；香港人上街只是寧鳴而死，不默而生。我們課程結束放暑假了，香港人卻在街頭上一天一天地創造奇蹟，那麼多的人從各處冒出來，終於擋下了不可能擋下的，令歷史為他們轉彎。如鍾耀華所寫：「歷史從來都是在創造不確定性，稍稍挪移其彈道。香港的反抗走到此刻，中共未贏我們未輸，是大家的努力。」

人們六月的時候不能預測香港，現在又何能以失敗主義論定臺灣？世界原不存在一個已經寫定了的未來。臺灣的前途仍然在於，珍惜民主的人們能夠發揮多少能量，對中國因素的作用力展開逆襲。民主自由是臺灣的理想，我們的百年追求；而理想，是不必害羞的。

（本文摘自《亡國感的逆襲──臺灣的機會在哪裡？》，新書係失敗者聯盟及春山出版編輯部共同策劃。由來自各個不同領域的專家作者，正面且直接的對於亡國感現象進行拆解，希望能從中找出抵禦、甚至是「逆襲」亡國感的方式。）

Just a quick update for those who might not have heard of our election result as of yesterday.

We've had the highest voting rate since 2004, with a turnout rate of 58% - reflecting how important it is given that it is the first one since the Umbrella Movement in 2014.

Pro-democracy camp has maintained its veto power in LegCo (at least in relation to members bills and constitutional reforms), winning 19 seats out of 35 in the Geographical Constituency, and 11 out of 35 in the Functional Constituency.

There are some new faces in the LegCo, with new generations now entering the council. Six candidates have set to advocate for Hong Kong's "self-determination" in the LegCo. Although localist parties did not do as well as I'd hope, overall the results still remain positive.

In case you've missed it, here's the video which is a continuation of my previous video explaining how Hong Kong is not China. This video will give you a better idea into Hong Kong's flawed institutional structure. It is to be seen whether call for Hong Kong's self-determination can really be brought up in the LegCo.

Lastly, for the next period of time, I will be returning to my usual Cantonese videos (travelling, vlogging etc). I know that many of you perhaps don't understand Cantonese so I will be putting on English subtitles in my future videos.

Thanks,
Auman

Hong Kong Independence?
…all you need to know about recent Hong Kong in 15 minutes
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
↓↓Transcript (as requested)↓↓

我們之前提及香港與中國有截然不同的制度
So previously we talked about Hong Kong and China having vastly a different system
香港是一個仿民主社會，而中國即由中國共產黨統治
Hong Kong is a quasi-democratic society while China is dominated by the Chinese Communist Party
所以我們不希望人們混淆兩者
…so we don’t want people to get confused between the two
但故事還未講完
But the story doesn’t end here
明年是2017年，香港主權移交給中國的20週年
Next year 2017, it would be 20 years since Hong Kong’s turnover to China
你大概會以為這段時間香港和中國會越走越近
You would’ve thought that during this time, Hong Kong and China would’ve grown closer to one another
但事實卻非如此
But it has not been so.
香港人和中國人反而變得越來越有隔膜
If anything, we’ve grown to be more and more apart.
-\-\-
沒錯 在過去20年
Yes it is true that during the last two decades
中國從一個發展中國家 發展成現時最大經濟體系之一
China has gone from being a developing country to what is now one of the largest, if not the largest economy in the world
人民收入增加 生活質素提升 有些中國人也躋身全球富豪榜
…which means rising income for Chinese citizens, better quality of life and China has some of the richest people in the world
香港人應該為中國人身份感到自豪吧
If anything, Hong Kong people should be a proud China man!
我還記得2008北京奧運 那個開幕典禮實在是精妙絕倫
I still remember seeing the Beijing Olympics in 2008; that opening ceremony was outrageously amazing
花了很多心機 很好看
…it was beautifully done and such a joy to watch
那是香港人少有地為國家感到自豪的一刻
It was one of those rare moments where Hong Kong people share the same sense of pride as the rest of China
不過 現實歸現實
But the Olympics is one thing, and reality is another
-\-\-
事實上，自主權移交以來，香港和中國一直有許多矛盾和衝突
The truth is there have been a lot of conflicts between Hong Kong and China since the handover
香港向中國打開了大門，每天都有大量中國遊客到訪
Hong Kong has largely opened up to China where we get a huge number of Chinese tourists every day
旅客本身不應該是個問題，但我們目睹過不少中國旅客的不文明行為
並不是問題。重點在於中國遊客所製造出來的問題。
While tourism shouldn’t be a problem in itself, we have witnessed a lot of issues with these Chinese tourists
例如不懂得在迪士尼樂園排隊 和隨地小便
There had been reports of uncivilized behavior such as not knowing how to queue in Disneyland and… pissing on the street.
我必須強調 不是所有中國遊客都會這樣做 只有一部份會這樣做
And I can’t emphasize enough, not every Chinese tourists do it, it’s just some that does it
但由於香港每天都有大量的中國遊客 這成為了一個逼切的問題
…but because Hong Kong gets so many of them, that becomes a daily problem for people living in Hong Kong.
除此之外，我們可以看到名牌店和藥房的數量激增，以滿足中國遊客的需求
And it’s not just that, we see the rise in luxury shops and pharmacies in Hong Kong to tailor the need of Chinese tourists
如果你去上水（很接近中國邊境的地方）的街頭
If you go to a street in Sheung Shui, which is a place very close to the mainland border
我以前常常去的──你會看見到處都是藥房
I used to go there a lot - you see streets full of pharmacies
其實我完全不明白為何這些店舖會叫做藥房
…and I don’t even know why they are called pharmacies
因為他們主要不是售賣藥物，而是奶粉和尿片
…because mainly they don’t sell medicine, they sell baby milk formula and diapers.
事實上 大陸人不相信中國製的貨品
The thing is, mainland Chinese don’t trust their own stuff
因為在中國任何東西都有可能是假的 那裡沒有質量管制或食物安全
…because you can get fake everything in China; there’s no quality control or food safety
所以很多中國人都會來香港買日用品 如奶粉
So many Chinese come to Hong Kong to buy daily stuff and one product that has always been in high demand is baby milk formulas
香港部份地區甚至出現奶粉短缺的問題
It has got to a point where the supply became so tight that there is a shortage of milk formulas in some areas of Hong Kong
如果你住在歐洲或美國，這情況可能難以置信
If you are living in the Europe or the US, this might sound really hard to believe
嬰兒配方奶粉和尿片！但這是真的，這切切實實在香港發生
Milk formula and diapers, but it’s true, it is what’s happening in Hong Kong.
還有其他問題，例如中國孕婦來港產子等
I can go on about other stuff as well such as the number of Mainland pregnant women who come to Hong Kong
事實上，在2010年，37%新生嬰兒的父母均不是香港永久居民
In fact, in 2010, as much as 37% of all babies born in Hong Kong have neither parents being a permanent Hong Kong resident
-\-\-
基於這些中港矛盾的問題 香港出現越來越嚴重的反中情緒
Basically because of all these things, this has led to an increasingly serious anti-Chinese hype in Hong Kong
很多香港人都不歡迎中國人 只想他們離開
Many local people are furious and just want them to go away
但對我來說 問題永遠出於制度
But to me, the real problem always lies in the system
我不想將整件事歸疚於中國人身上
Conceptually, I hate to put my frustration upon the Chinese people
因為要來港購物以保障自身安全並不是他們的錯
Because it’s not their fault that they have to buy things from Hong Kong to ensure that they are safe
但制度上出了甚麼問題？
But what about the system?
關於這個制度我簡述如下
There’s a lot I can say about this system, but for now I will just simplify it as follows
在制度頂端有中國共產黨，之後有香港政府和立法會中的建制派
At the top of the system we have the Chinese Communist Party, then we have the Hong Kong government and the pro-establishment camp in our Legislative council
簡單來說，這個制度一直想將香港變成中國的一個普通城市
In short, this system has been trying to turn Hong Kong into just another city of China
並且破壞一國兩制的原則
…and damaging the core principle of “One Country, Two Systems”
-\-\-
很長時間以來，香港人一直在爭取民主
For a long time, Hong Kong people have been advocating for full democracy
即是普選，可以提名和投票給我們自己的領袖（行政長官）
That means universal suffrage with the right to nominate and elect our own leader, which in Hong Kong is called the Chief Executive
根據基本法，我們有普選的權利
According to the Basic Law, we have a legal right to universal suffrage.
在過去20年，中國政府曾多次承諾香港人會有普選
In the past 20 years, the Chinese government has assured Hong Kong several times that we are going to get universal suffrage
但他們一直拖延實施普選的日期
But they have been pushing back the date for it
又推托說香港人未準備好，所以2007年和2012年都沒有普選。
…and kept saying Hong Kong wasn’t ready, so we didn’t get it in 2007 and 2012
但北京承諾香港2017年可普選特首
But the Chinese has set a timeline for it, and they said Hong Kong would eventually get universal suffrage by 2017
結果，2014年8月31日，北京說
And guess what, on 31st August 2014, the Chinese said
好，你可以有你想要的普選，但我們需要增加幾個條件
Alright you are going to get your universal suffrage, but we are going to have to impose some conditions
首先，行政長官必需愛國
First the Chief Executive must be someone who is patriotic to China
第二，候選人需要先得到現有的行政長官選舉委員會的提名 (絕大部分都是親中代表)
Secondly candidates are going to be nominated by the current Election Committee, which consists (mostly) of 1200 pro-Beijing representatives
最後，無論誰勝出選舉，都要得到中國政府委任才可成為行政長官
Lastly, whoever wins the popular election must be appointed by the Chinese government
所以他們就是說，好，你們可以普選，但我們保留剔除任何人的權利
So basically they are saying, alright you can get your vote but we reserve the right to screen out anyone that we dislike
-\-\-
北京公布831決定後，香港人當然很憤怒
After this was announced by the Chinese officials, we were bloody furious
所以我們展開了一連串抗議行動，要求真普選
So we began a series of protests demanding for “true universal suffrage”
我們一直以來都覺得普選就是
For years we have always thought universal suffrage means just that
一個民主及公開的選舉
The right to vote in a democratic and open election
但是中共卻憑空製造了完全相反的東西
But the CCP managed to create something that is completely contrary to that
結果，大學生開始罷課
As a result, university students like myself began boycotting classes
並參與在金鐘香港政府總部外舉行的集會
…and attended gathering outside the Hong Kong government headquarters in Admiralty to protest
這演變成持續79天的佔領金鐘、銅鑼灣和旺角的運動
This has then turned into a 79-days long widespread occupy movement in streets of Admiralty, Causeway Bay and Mongkok
期間警察使用催淚彈和胡椒噴霧來驅散我們，我們即用雨傘作盾
During this time, police has used tear gas and pepper spray to try to get rid of us and we used umbrellas as shield
解釋了為什麼這叫雨傘運動或雨傘革命
That’s why this is called the Umbrella Movement or Umbrella Revolution
我個人不喜歡稱之為革命，因為革命通常與激進的改變有關
Personally I don’t like to call it a revolution, because revolution is often associated with some sort of radical change
但對於我們來說，79天佔領街頭後，仍毫無成果
But for us, after 79-days of occupying the streets, nothing has changed.
到今天為止，一切維持原狀──沒有行政長官普選
So to this day, the status quo remains – there is no universal suffrage for our Chief Executive election
-\-\-
但是為何我們這麼想要普選？
But why do we want universal suffrage so much?
你要明白，我們的制度一直都有缺陷
Well you have to understand that our governmental system has always been institutionally flawed
一般當我們提到三權分立時，有行政、立法和司法三個機關
Usually when we talk about the Separation of Powers, we have the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary
這三個機關本應互相制衡，沒有人能夠掌控一切的權力
They are meant to act as checks and balances of each other so no one gets too much power
因為正如英國的阿克頓男爵所言：
…because as Lord Acton famously said,
「權力導致腐敗，絕對權力導致絕對腐敗。」
“Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
我們不但行政長官是經由1200人的小圈子挑選 當中大部份為親中人士
Not only is our leader of the executive selected by a small-group of 1,200 voters – the majority of whom are pro-Beijing
我們連立法會也不能全部直選
We also don’t get to vote entirely for our Legislative Council
事實上，我們只能直選立法會的一半議員
In fact, only half of our legislators get directly elected by us
另外一半是由所謂的功能組別選出
The other half are elected through the so-called Functional Constituencies
香港一共有28個功能組別
There are 28 different functional constituencies, representing different seats in our Legislative council
原意是為了讓香港不同的界別和工種都能對政府政策有話語權
Originally this meant to provide different professions across Hong Kong to have a say in government politics
-\-\-
但這個制度本質上存在缺陷
But there’s a huge problem – this system is fundamentally flawed
最為人爭議的是，這制度容許公司和專業團體登記為選民
Most controversially, it allows companies and professional bodies to register as voters
製造了一個漏洞讓大公司同時間可持有多張選票
So this creates a loophole where big business can hold multiple votes at the same time
以飲食業為例，大公司可以登記每間分店為一個選民
Consider the catering constituency, big restaurant companies can register each of their outlets as voters
像大家樂這種大型的連鎖餐廳
So big food chain like Café De Carol
不，這不是一間法國菜餐廳，這是港式快餐店
Nope, it is not a French restaurant – it’s a fast food Chinese restaurant
這些大公司可以登記上一百張選票
Something like that can register up to a hundred votes if they like
另外，不同功能組別之間也有很大差異
Also there is a huge discrepancy between different functional constituencies
例如，在衛生服務界，有37,000個登記選民，但在保險界卻只有130個
For example, in the Health Services sector, there are 37,000 registered voters, whereas in Insurance, there are only 130 registered voters
這個差異根本不合邏輯 為甚麼有些行業會得到更廣泛的代表？
There is really no logical explanation for it – why are some industry represented more fairly while others are not
事實上，近半功能組別都是自動當選的，大部份的席位都由建制派瓜分
In fact, almost half of the functional constituencies are uncontested and most of the seats are dominated by the pro-establishment camp.
-\-\-
這有甚麼實際意義？
But what is the actual significance?
當立法會議員自行提出草案和議案時，我們有所謂的分組點票
You see, when individual legislators propose bills and motions, we have a split-voting system
意思是，在草案通過之前，
…meaning that to be able to pass the bill
需要得到地區直選和功能組別兩方面均過半數支持
It requires a majority vote in both the geographical constituency – those directly elected by us – and the functional constituency
所以就算一個草案得到總共過半數的支持
So we can have a bill that is supported by the majority of the legislators
但仍會因為在功能組別方面未過半數而流產
But fails nonetheless because it did not pass the functional constituency
理論上，只要控制了功能組別的半數就可以否決任何議員草案或議案
So in effect, you only need half of the votes within the Functional Constituency to reject all bills and motions put forward by individual legislators.
但政府提出的卻不一樣，
But the same does not apply to government bills
只需要取得過半數的支持就可以了
For government bills, you only need to get a majority from all the legislators as a whole
所以有時候會有一些政府議案原本被大部分直選議員反對
So sometimes we have bills that are opposed by the majority of those legislators directly elected by us
但基於功能界別大部份贊成而通過
…but nonetheless get through because of the functional constituency
這個制度的問題在於政府和大商家會有勾結的誘因
The major problem of this is that it creates an incentive for the Government and big business players to side with each other
一方面，有功能組別的支持，政府可以否決所有由議員提出的議案
On one hand with the help of functional constituency, the Government has an effective veto over all motions in the Legislative council
另一方面，商界自己也可以否決不符合他們商業利益的議案，如最低工資和標準工時
…while on the other hand businesses can reject motions that are contrary to their interests such as minimum wage and standard working hours
-\-\-
因此，行政機關在立法方面有很大的控制權
Because of this, the executive has a lot of control over our Legislative Council
他們很多時候也會做很多與市民意願相反的決定
And they often make decisions that are contrary to public opinions
由於選舉制度上的缺陷，我們也不能有效地向行政機關問責
And because of the fundamental flaws in our electoral systems, there is no way we could hold our executive accountable in any shape or form
你也必須明白 香港政府和和中國政府之間的關係
Conceptually you also have to understand the relationship between our executive and the Chinese government
你也許會認為，在一國兩制原則下，香港政府和中國政府是分開的
It’s easy to say, well the Hong Kong government is separate from the Chinese government because of the principle of one country two systems
我們可以實行自己的政策，這不是中國政府的問題，而是香港政府本身的問題
And we can implement our own policies so it’s not the fault of the Chinese government but of our own government
也許是吧，但我們的選舉制度確保香港行政長官是忠於北京的
That is partly true, but remember we have a system as such where our Chief Executive is guaranteed to be pro-Beijing
因此香港政府和中國政府密不可分
That’s why it has an incentive to side with the Chinese government
-\-\-
以現任行政長官梁振英為例 他自上任以來都在替北京擦鞋
For example, our current Chief Executive, CY Leung, he has been keen to please Beijing wherever possible
他重視中國的利益多於香港的利益
There are lots of policies where he appeared to have put Mainland’s interest above Hong Kong’s interest
如2012年，政府打算推行強制國民教育
For example, in 2012, the government tried to introduce mandatory National Education classes
想加強學生的國家認同感
…so that students can strengthen their national identity about China
但這被大眾反對，因為很多人都擔心這是偏向共產黨的洗腦教育
This was met with huge public protests as many fear that it would simply be a brainwashing curriculum biased towards the Chinese Communist Party
其他情況還包括否決香港電視的牌照申請，梁振英的5,000萬元賄款醜聞等等
There are also other instances such as the rejection of HKTV, CY Leung’s $50 million corrupt scandal – etc
我們極不滿意現在的政府
Basically, we are extremely unsatisfied with our current Government
制度本身容許我們的政府恣意妄為
The system itself allows for our government to potentially be arbitrary and self-serving
而我們沒有有效的方法向政府問責
And there’s no way we could hold our government accountable in any shape or forms
這就是我們想要普選的原因：我們想選擇自己的領袖
That’s why we want universal suffrage so much – so that we can choose our own leader
當然，這不會在一夕間解決所有問題，但會是一個通往更民主和平的制度的開端。
Yes it won’t solve everything but it will be a start to a more democratic and fair system
-\-\-
雨傘運動是前所未有的
The Umbrella Movement was a first of its kind
雨傘運動一開始十分和平
It started off extremely peacefully
強調非暴力、理性、愛與和平等等
With an emphasis on being non-violent, rational, love and peace and all that
但隨着時間經過，梁振英政府拒絕回應
But as it went on, the CY Leung’s government managed to remain unresponsive
過了兩個月，人們都不知道要怎麼辦
Two months into occupying the streets, people simply didn’t know what to do
而示威者和警察之間的關係則每況愈下
And the relationship between the protesters and the police got worse by days
有警察使用暴力對待示威者
There was alleged police violence
其中有七個警察將一個示威者拖到暗角施暴
Seven police officers took a protester to a dark corner and beat him up
無可避免地，雨傘運動最終演變成示威者和警察之間暴力的衝突──市民被打、被捕
Inevitably the movement turned into something more violent with protesters clashing with the police – people were beaten up and arrested.
-\-\-
自雨傘運動以來，社會處於嚴重撕裂的狀態
Since the Umbrella Movement, the society has been hugely divided
市民對警察的信任度跌至新低
Police confidence has gone to an all-time low
一方面，我們發現和平的示威遊行再沒有用
On one hand, we realize peaceful protest no longer does a damn thing,
另一方面，人們正在尋找抗衡警力的方法──亦即採取更激進的行動
…while on the other hand, people are finding ways to counter police force – essentially resorting to more radical actions
這也引致部份市民在意識形態上與傳統泛民主派分道揚鑣
It also led to an ideological separation within the pro-democracy camp
香港的傳統泛民主派視建設民主中國為己任
Traditionally pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong felt it was their duty to build a democratic China
他們其實比任何人都更愛中國
If anything they are more patriotic to China than anyone
他們是對六四天安門事件最大感觸的人
They are the people who felt most strongly about stuff like Tiananmen Square
但在過去20年，香港民主沒有寸進，也看不到中國民主化的希望
But for the last 20 years, democracy has not been advanced for Hong Kong nor does it look likely for China
所以有人開始說
That’s why new advocates are saying,
建設民主中國是不切實際的
Well there’s no real possibility of so-called building a democratic China
我們要先自救
We need to start rescuing ourselves first
因此本土和香港獨立的概念開始萌芽，因為人們對一國兩制開始失去信心
So, there emerges the idea of localism and Hong Kong independence because people are simply losing faith in the so-called One Country Two Systems.
-\-\-
這些社會不穩和躁動最終導致今年初在旺角發生的事件
All this social unrest has led to what happened earlier this year in Mongkok
那是農曆正月初一
It was the first day into Chinese Lunar New Year;
街上有小販在賣熟食
There were some street hawkers selling street food
這些小販雖是無牌經營，但他們一向都在農曆新年頭幾天擺賣，賺幾個快錢
They are unlicensed but that’s what they have always done in the first few days of Chinese New Year, just trying to make a few extra bucks
這就像香港的小傳統
It’s like a little local tradition in Hong Kong.
但今年警察突然執法，引發示威者與警察之間的衝突
But somehow this time the police decided to confront them – which has led to protesters confronting the police
突然間，小販擺賣演變成騷動，或暴亂，視乎你怎麼看
Suddenly it has turned into a huge unrest, or riot, depending which side you are on
街上有雜物起火，市民撿起磚和樽扔向警察
There were fire on the street, people picking up bricks and bottles throwing at the police
警察向天開了兩槍以鎮壓人群
Two shots were fired in the air for crowd control
這是香港二十年來都未見過的暴力
It was violence on a scale that has never been seen in Hong Kong for the last 20 years
的確 暴力的程度與本身的小販問題根本完全不相稱
In no way was the violence proportional to the whole street food and street hawker issue
但你必須明白背後的原因
But you have to be able to understand it in the light of the whole circumstances
那種自雨傘運動以來積累的憤怒和不滿
The sort of anger that has been accumulated since the Umbrella Movement
社會民怨達臨界點
Social unrest is now at its highest point
-\-\-
雨傘運動後，各種事情由壞變更壞，北京加重了對香港的控制
Things have gotten from bad to worse for Hong Kong since the Umbrella Movement. Beijing has tighten up control of Hong Kong
我們曾經享有的自由受到嚴峻挑戰
Our once enjoyed freedom has been put to some serious doubt
去年，五個在香港出售中國敏感話題的書籍的書商消失了
Five Hong Kong booksellers who sell sensitive stuff about the Chinese Communist Party went missing last year
他們沒有任何出境記錄，憑空消失了
There were no record of them going out of Hong Kong, and they just disappeared
有好一段時間，沒有人知道他們到哪裡去了，然後……
For a while no-one really knows where they went, and then…
好像魔法一樣，他們出現在中國的電視台，承認他們所謂的罪行
Like magic, there they are in Mainland China appearing on TV, confessing their guilt
其他事情還包括廉政公署（香港引以為傲的反貪污機構）大地震
Other stuff such as the ICAC, an anti-corruption body that we have always been proud of, has also been involved in some major shake-ups
更近期的有立法會選舉有六位候選人被取消資格
More recently, six candidates have been disqualified from running the Legislative Council election
他們被取消資格的原因是因為他們提倡香港獨立
They have been disqualified because they advocate for Hong Kong Independence
沒有法例授權行政機關以政治原因篩選候選人
There is nothing in the law that allows the administrative to screen out candidates running for the legislative council for political reason
這根本違反言論自由
That’s just simply grossly against freedom of speech
-\-\-
還記得四年前，港獨根本無人提及
And remember, four years ago, Hong Kong independence was not even an idea to start with
現在卻成長為一個熱議的社會話題，越來越多人支持香港獨立
Now it has turned into a whole serious social movement – more and more people are turning to Hong Kong independence
背後的原因？
And the reason behind that?
不久之前有一個網上比賽，讓人用六個字寫悲慘故事。有人寫：
A while back there was a post asking people to write sad stories in six words, and someone wrote this:
「一國，兩制，笑話。」
“One Country, Two Systems, Just kidding.”
這就是香港的現況
And that pretty much sums it up for Hong Kong.
主權移交時，曾經有人承諾我們會有
When Hong Kong got handed back over to China, we were guaranteed of all these things:
言論自由、新聞自由和法治
...the freedom of speech, the freedom of press and the rule of law
但這些都一直被破壞
But these things have been undermined hugely
北京的訊息很清晰：
The message from China is clear:
你想要高度自治嗎？
You want your high degree of autonomy and you want to feel special right?
可是你只能在我容許的限度裡享有自由
But you are only as free as we allow you to be
這些自由是我給你們的，我現在要取回你也不能作聲
We gave you that stuff so shut up if we want to take them back. Period.
但事實上中國沒有給予我們自由
But the truth is China didn’t give us freedom of speech\\
我們的人權都不是中國給予的
You didn’t give us any of our fundamental rights. Period.
-\-\-
我的理解？
The way I understand it?
香港獨立是被動而不是主動的
Well Hong Kong independence is reactive rather than proactive
這是對中國收緊香港的控制所走的一步
It’s a response to the Chinese government for increasingly tightening up control of Hong Kong
我們已經對一國兩制完全失去信心
We’ve completely lost faith in One Country Two systems
所以我們要求更多自主
As a counteractive response we are demanding for more autonomy
我們想要把握自己的命運
We want to be able to grasp hold of our own fate
所以這就是香港的現狀
So this is where things are right now in Hong Kong
這是一個死結
It’s in a complete deadlock
我們只能二擇其一：接受一國一制或更激進地抗爭
We either accept for one country one system or we have to fight in a more radical manner
-\-\-
星期日是下屆立法會的選舉投票日，是雨傘運動以來的第一次選舉
On Sunday, it will be our next Legislative Council election – the first since the Umbrella Movement
天知道會發生甚麼事
God knows what’s going to happen
我希望你能去投票，好好考慮要投給誰
But I do urge you to vote, and to think about your vote
Because in a perfect world
你試想，在完美的世界裡
當立法會可以處理大多數事情的話，市民便不需要走上街頭暴力抗爭
…if things can get done in the Legislative Council, then people wouldn’t need to take to the street and to resort to any kind of violence
我們極需立法會抗衡行政機關的權力，而你的一票有莫大的幫助
We desperately need a balance of power right now – and your vote can contribute to that
我們需要議會內有更大的聲音──我們需要更多人去尋找不同的可能
We need more voice in our Legislative council – we need people to look for different possibility
呼。就是這樣。
Phew, so that’s it.
無論你來自香港或香港以外的地方
Whether you are from Hong Kong, or from outside of Hong Kong,
這段和上一段影片都對我以及很多香港人來說很重要。
This video and the last video is important to me, and to a lot of people in Hong Kong
霎時之間這可能難以消化
This is probably a lot to take in if you’re new to this, but don’t just take my words for it
但請繼續留意新聞，和其他人一起討論，做更多的資料搜集，這些東西都可在網上找到
Keep reading the news; keep talking to people about it; go research about this, it’s all over the internet
最後，謝謝收看
And lastly, thanks for watching.
天祐香港