【After Winning Majority in LegCo: Beijing's Crackdown May Trigger International Intervention】
***感謝Hong Kong Columns - Translated,將我早前撰寫『議會過半想像:以「#國際攬炒」反制「臨立會2.0」』長文(https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.313299448762570/2887650867994069/)翻譯成英文,鼓勵國際社會關注立會選舉一旦過半的沙盤推演,在最惡劣形勢下的制衡策略。***
中文精簡版本:https://www.facebook.com/joshuawongchifung/photos/a.564294826996363/2888641404561682/
Hongkongers have experienced our revolution for over half a year. They no longer take a consequentialist view to the effectiveness of their movement as they did years ago, or waste time second-guessing the intentions and background of fellow activists. Following the defensive battles at CUHK and PolyU, November’s District Council election saw a great victory of unity. More marvellous is the union between peaceful and “valiant” protesters.
In the process of resisting tyranny, the people have realised that one cannot prioritize one strategy over another. This is also how the common goal of “35+” came into being—the hope that we will win over half of the seats in the Legislative Council (LegCo) this September, such that the political spectrum that represents the majority of Hongkongers is able to gain control of legislative decisions. The political clout of Hongkongers will increase if 35 or more seats are successfully secured on our side. It is certainly one vital step to achieve the five demands within the system.
The possibility of realizing legislative majority
Technically it is not unrealistic to win a majority even under the current undemocratic system. Back in the 2016 LegCo election, we already won 30 seats. In addition to the District Council (First) functional constituency seat that is already in the pocket of the pan-democrats, as long as the candidates in Kowloon East and New Territories West do not start infighting again, we could safely secure 33 seats based on the number of pan-dem votes in 2016.
The other 3 seats required to achieve a majority depend on democrats’ breakthrough among the functional constituencies by dispersing the resources of the Liaison Office. They also count on whether the turnout this September could exceed 71.2% — that of last year’s District Council elections. Some of the factors that could affect the turnout include: will the epidemic persist into the summer? Will there be potential violent repression of protests in the 2 weeks preceding the election? Will Hong Kong-US relations be affected by the downturn of the global economy?
Therefore, the ambition of “35+” is to be prioritised by the resistance as both a means and an end. I have already expressed my support for an intra-party primary at the coordination meeting. In the meantime, it is pleasing to see the ongoing debates reaching a consensus of maximising the seats among geographical constituencies in the upcoming election.
Whilst enthusiastic coordination, we should also assess the post-election landscape and gauge Beijing’s reactions: if we do not reach 35 seats, Hong Kong will be subject to tighter control and more severe repression by China; but if the democratic parties successfully form a majority in LegCo, CCP’s fears of a “constitutional crisis” would become imminent. Hence, the key questions are how the Pan-Democrats should deal with the volatile political situation in Hong Kong and how they are going to meet Beijing’s charge head-on.
Watching out for Beijing’s dismissal of LegCo after reaching majority
To take back control of LegCo such that it faithfully reflects the majority’s principles and needs is the definition of a healthy democracy. Recently, however, DAB’s Tam Yiu-chung has warned that the plan of the Pan-Dems to “usurp power” in the LegCo would only lead to Beijing’s forceful disqualification of certain members or the interpretation of the Basic Law. This proves that winning a majority in LegCo is not only a popular conception but also a realistic challenge that would get on the nerves of Beijing. Could Beijing accept a President James To in LegCo? These unknown variables must be addressed upon achieving a majority.
While there is no telltale sign as to Beijing’s exact strategy, we are already familiar with the way CCP manipulated the Basic Law in the past 4 years. Having experienced three waves of disqualifications in LegCo, twice kicked out of LegCo with my team, and thrice locked up in jail, I have no false hopes of an easy compromise from Beijing: they would not let Pan-Dems control LegCo for half a year and wait (as is the proper procedure) until after having negatived the Budget to dissolve the legislature, and thereby giving them an easy victory in the re-elections. The greater the Pan-Dems threaten Beijing’s rule in Hong Kong, the more likely that it will trigger Beijing’s repression.
Since the disqualification and arrest of lawmakers have already become “normalised”, one can even imagine the police stepping into the LegCo building to force Pan-Dems into voting. Neither is it beyond our imagination to expect the CCP to kick out all 70 lawmakers in a fit of rage and replace them with a provisional LegCo “2.0” [HKCT note: The first was from 25 Jan 1997 to 30 Jun 1998]. To depend on a majority that could lead to a chapter of a “new testament” for One Country, Two Systems is perhaps what many elites long for, but they are overly optimistic:for a ticket to the promised land will not be available at the Chief Executive election campaign a year and a half later.
Admittedly, the Pan-Dems cannot unilaterally initiate “Laam-chaau” [HKCT note: mostly translated into “scorched-earth” mentality or “mutual destruction”; some even translated into “If I burn, you burn with us”]. The most they can do is to force a standstill of the government, and not for long the LegCo will have been eliminated from the equation to make the wheels turn again. It all leaves the plan of “Negativing the motion → Dissolving LegCo → Re-election after re-election → the stepping down of Carrie Lam” merely as overly positive speculation, probably resulting from their overestimate of CCP's capacity for rational calculation. The Pan-Dems must guard their frontlines and recognise what the biggest threat from Hong Kong to China could be. In this case, should LegCo sessions be disrupted or suspended, the Pan-Dems would have to be well prepared to surmount the expected obstacles and prevent the disqualification crisis 4 years ago—a Catch-22 indeed.
Productive tension from global intervention: Using Laam-chaau against the CCP
What aggravates the CCP the most is the potential threat to Hong Kong’s unique status as the one and only “separate customs territory”. Any miscalculation will compromise its role as the Chinese economy’s “white gloves”. Imagine if CCP were to disqualify all 70 elected lawmakers and convene a meeting north of the Shenzhen River to pass a resolution to Hong Kong’s affairs (much like the Provisional Legislative Council “1.0" in 1997), how great will the shock be in a world with an effective Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act? However hard it is to predict the future one thing is certain: With the US presidential election just around the corner, blows to the separation of powers would not be tolerated, and the West would necessarily effect countermeasures against the Hong Kong government.
Beijing has been relying upon Hong Kong to navigate the international community for decades. While clamping down on the political freedom of the cosmopolitan city, Beijing desires to maintain the financial centre’s economic freedom. Hence, we started lobbying for the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act four years ago, and today we are determined to promote “Laam-chaau” on an international scale.
The will of the voters must be reflected in an election. If a “35+” legislature were to be dismissed and replaced, such flagrant violation of democracy would assuredly cause a greater backlash than the infamous extradition bill. Knowing what the reality ahead of us could be, we have to combine our election and international strategies to oppose the placement of a 35+ LegCo with an “Emergency Legislative Council 2.0”, to advance an international “Laam-chaau” to Hong Kong’s status as “separate customs territory”. Only then will we stand a chance to resist the regime and to realise the five demands.
Adjusting our mindset: Overcoming the “constitutional crisis” to reach a resolution
Upon the realization of the “35+” LegCo, it is expected that the CCP will launch a devastating counterattack. The Pan-Dems should not expect LegCo to run normally; neither can the lawmakers realise their governing blueprints they have for Hong Kong. Rather, candidates will be able to compete against one another with visions of a liberated Hong Kong through popular vote. Bringing this point up has nothing to do with undermining the common goal of reaching a majority in LegCo, but rather channels the battle of LegCo to positive use upon the rule of law’s death and a “constitutional crisis” ahead. Knowing that Hongkongers have nothing to fall back on, all Pan-Dems should not miss the only way to the realization of “35+”.
Thus, be they partisans, nonpartisans, incumbent politicians, amateur politicians, or the civil society as a whole – if we stay in the political discourse of 2016 and continue to perpetuate old stereotypes, that is to deal with the divisions on the pan-democratic camp by favouring the most “local” faction; to consider only resource allocation and self-aggrandizement as the purpose of a LegCo campaign; to ignore how potential lawmakers are fitted to what specific roles; to turn a blind eye to the journey of resistance since last summer (extending indefinitely into the future)—They would lead as astray and cost us lose a precious opportunity for change by winning a 35+ majority.
The extent to which the pan-democrats can stay united in light of the political atmosphere since last summer is another problem that our side must to address. Before the watershed moment of 12th June 2019, many democratic delegates were trapped in the mentality of needing to “preserve people’s livelihood”, “be content of what we have accomplished”, and other strategies that favours stability. As the government refuses to heed to the five demands, whether the democrats, especially those in the functional constituencies, have the political will to go all-in is the real difficult question that confronts us in the upcoming LegCo election.
All in all, if “35+” cannot be realised, it is unsurprising to see LegCo being more heavily suppressed in the next 4 years; even if "35+" is achieved, it is questionable whether the pan-democrats are able to weather multiple attacks, verbal or physical, from the regime (judging from its power in the last four years) and utilise the international Laam-chaau strategy against the displacement of LegCo. Adhering to the motto of “we fight on, each in his own way”, I can only hope that Hongkongers in elections, street confrontations and international front can reconcile with each other, so that we may collectively compel the government to yield to our demands in the next six months. It is only by reaching a resolution before a real constitutional crisis that we can combat the institutional violence of the regime and not be devoured by it.
https://hkcolumn.blogspot.com/2020/04/joshua-wong-after-winning-majority-in.html?fbclid=IwAR216gf53pG_j9JOpDfr2GItvjLfrFSekKTPzoEs3-s9KBqvPEwz865P8vw
adhering 中文 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的最讚貼文
[詞彙區別] people, individual, persons, human, man, mankind, humankind 的區別:
在寫作的時候,有些同學為了避免重複使用相同的詞彙,卻選用了意義上不盡相同的單字,而無法精確地表達出自己所想傳達的想法。這問題很可能來自於考生平時在語言學習上過於依賴中英翻譯,因此考生在不夠了解某些一字多義的詞彙的情況下,很容易造成讀者的誤解。舉例來說,spend vs. cost vs. take (花費),borrow vs. lend vs. loan (借),這些字的中譯都很非常類似,以中文為母語的考生在使用上,只要稍微一不注意,就容易錯誤使用。甚至有些考生會以offspring (子孫; 後代) 來代替 children (小孩),我們若是查字典了解其義,就會知道 offspring 比較常出現在正式的科學用法上,泛指動物的後代及植物的幼苗。
為了幫助同學增加詞彙量並且精確地在口說和寫作上使用這些字。我會用使用一個新的同義字系列清楚地區分這些類似的字並幫助同學們在文章中正確地使用它們。同學們也應該在使用這些字之前先查查字典,以了解這些字的使用方式。
People 的同義字
★★★human (human being) ★★★
我們使用human being這個字來強調我們和動物的不同。 We used human being to stress our difference from animals or aliens (in science fiction).
1. Dogs can hear much better than humans.
2. That is no way to treat another human being.
★★★man★★★
我們用man這個字來指男性、全部的人類、或指特定某一時代的人類。 We used man to talk about adult male human or humans as a group (or humans from a particular period of history).
1. The relationships between men and women are often complex and puzzling.
2. This is one of the worst diseases known to man.
3. Man had caused considerable damage to the environment.
4. Being a modern man today is no different than it was a century ago. It’s all about adhering to principle.
★★★mankind★★★
我們用mankind這個字來強調全部人類這個概念。 We used mankind when we talk about all humans as one large group.
1. Pollution is something that harms mankind across the globe, and disasters like war and famine have affected mankind all through our history.
*Man和mankind傳統上一直是用來指所有的男性和女性。很多人現在偏好使用humanity這個字和humankind來避掉性別歧視的問題。
Man and mankind have traditionally been used to mean “all men and women.” Many people now prefer to use humanity, the human race, human beings or people to avoid being sexist. Humankind is used as a gender neutral alternative to “mankind.”
★★★person★★★
person這個字是指人的單數。A person in the singular to refer to any human being.
1. He was a very nice person, always pleasant and friendly.
Persons 是 person的複數,是一個在文件或法律條文中使用的單字。
Persons (plural) is a very formal word. We only use it in rather legalistic contexts:
1. Any person or persons found in possession of illegal substances will be prosecuted.
2. The police are looking for three separate persons who were in this area.
People 也是person的複數,可指所有的人類或特定狀況中的一群人。它也可以指所有的國民。
People can refer to all human beings, or to a group of persons in a particular situation. It can also mean "all the citizens," as in a political leader who understands the needs of the people.
1. There were at least a thousand people in the audience.
2. The people are tired of hearing political rhetoric! They want action, not talk.
★★★individual★★★
我們用individual來強調個人以和團體做區隔。We used individual to stress that a person considered separately rather than as part of a group.
1. Every individual has rights which must never be taken away.
2. Three separate individuals walked into my store.
除了以上的用法,同學也可以用代名詞 (e.g. everyone, they) 來替換”人們” 這個單字,也可以用形容詞來更明確的指出某一群人(e.g. most, some, a few, all)。
Summary:
✎ 通常會用"people"這個詞彙來指稱一般的社會大眾;另一方面,如果想要去強調一個團體當中的每個人,則會使用"individuals"。
✎ 想要將所有人類當成一個大族群去做論述的時候,通常只會用"mankind/humankind"或是"the human race/human beings"等詞彙。
✎ 想要去強調一個人的人性面時,通常會用"human being"。
E.g. How could you do this to another human being? He has rights!
✎撰寫科學性質的相關文章時,才會運用到"Homo sapiens"。
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=443676912389120
Sources:
http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
http://www.ldoceonline.com/
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
http://www.vocabulary.com/
adhering 中文 在 How To Use Fabric Glue - YouTube 的推薦與評價
... <看更多>