關於 compromise definition ，我們在網路上蒐集到這些相關的討論、資訊與評價

英模老鳥(veteran)、菜鳥(rookie)及準高一新鮮人(freshman)，
快跟著俐媽一起衝單字量吧！

俐媽手中這兩本小小單字書，
要確實K熟呦！

英模班孩子，
第一回的單字+片語共144個，
請認真服用。
高二寶貝，至少背前60個保均標，
若可K到前90個字，可衝前or頂標；
至於高三寶貝，你的胃口一定很大了吧？
懂的齁～～

小高一準新鮮人，
108新課綱三大版本的1～4課(含review 1)單字，已全數標列在書中，
不但有音標、詞性、定義、衍生字、片語、搭配詞、小常識，
且單字已更新在我們的APP「英文智慧王」中，
想聽道地真人發音+例句？
英文智慧王中全都有連結👍🏼
.
厲害的威俐學子，
龍騰、三民、翰林遠東三大版本全都K💪🏻
我們要稱霸每一次的段考💯💯💯，
贏過那些暑假還賴在家翻來滾去的同學！
.
而想在今年攻克多益TOEIC的孩子，
別忘了K我們的多益證書5️⃣色分區單字哦！
—————————————————————
🈴 俐媽英文教室—單字篇：
🆙 vocabulary (n.) 單字
—》 a wide/ large/ extensive/ rich vocabulary 豐富的單字量
—》a narrow/ small/ limited/ restricted vocabulary 有限的單字量
—》 acquire/ have/ learn one’s vocabulary 習得單字
—》increase/ enlarge/ enrich/ build/ develop/ widen/ extend/ expand one’s vocabulary 擴充單字量
e.g. The word “compromise” is not in my vocabulary. 我的字彙裡沒有「妥協」。(即我決不妥協。)
📒 booklet/pamphlet/brochure (n.) 小冊子
📍 spelling (n.) 拼字
📍 part of speech (n.) 詞性
📍 phonetic symbol (n.) 音標
📍 pronunciation (n.) 發音
📍 stress (n.) 重音
📍 syllable (n.) 音節
📍 phonetic symbol (n.) 音標
📍 definition (n.) 定義
📍 derivative (n.) 衍生字
📍 collocation (n.) 搭配詞
📍 phrase (n.) 片語
📍 synonym (n.) 同義字
📍 antonym (n.) 反義字
📍 authentic (a.) 道地的
📱 application (n.) 應用程式
📱 download (v.) 下載
📱 update (v.) 更新
📁 certificate (n.) 證書
———————————————————
「英文智慧王」APP，
還可以玩單字的記憶遊戲，
多闖關可以累積金幣💰，
快來用金幣解下一個新關吧！
.
#俐媽英文教室
#俐媽英文教室單字篇
#威俐英文EEC
#台大明明走在最前端
#台大明明業界第一

The Best Opportunity to “Laam5Caau2”* (Lee Yee)

Since the start of the Anti-ELAB movement, numerous young people, journalists, ordinary citizens have shed blood, sweat and tears on the streets; many dead bodies were discovered but “not in suspicious circumstances”; Hong Kong Police blatantly batter people, not to mention tortures in the dark room, sexual and other violent assaults. How Hongkongers fight against all this, is like David and Goliath. They put their lives at stake with a determination that screams “if we burn, you burn with us”, awaking global attention. Their demand from the international societies is for them to sanction China and Hong Kong.

Because National Security Law (NSL) was not put into the meeting agenda of the previous National People’s Congress (NPC), rumor has it that China wants to back out of the plan. A wave of comments from the Hong Kong netizens flooded the Internet saying “don’t you dare to chicken out now”, and “if you cop out now you are a wimp”. This is the continuation of the so-called “Scorched-Earth mentality” [“Laam5Caau2”]. “Laam5Caau2” is neither masochism, nor asking for trouble; it is the determination to fight till the end with the risk of death, in the hope to reborn or resurrect. Without such determination, there will be no lifeline for Hong Kong.*

As the draft NSL came out, former Chief Justice of Hong Kong, Honorable Andrew Li Kwok-nang, who had previously wished to compromise in exchange for the law being enforced in Hong Kong, published an article yesterday. He pointed out, with the Chief Executive being able to appoint judges to hear NSL-related cases, Beijing being allowed to “administer jurisdiction” in a small number of cases and those having been arrested could be extradited to the mainland, he is deeply concerned that it would completely destroyed the independence of the justice system under the Basic Law.

To his comments, Carrie Lam responded that “appointing judges” only means to appoint one among the current judges; in terms of extradition, there are similarities between Common Law and the law in Mainland China, such as “the presumption of innocence.”

We won’t forget what just happened recently. Judge Kwok Wai-kin, who was dealing with a case of assault near Lennon Wall where the meat cleaver-wielding defendant attacked three people, said the defendant had a “noble sentiment”. Chief Justice Geoffrey Ma immediately made the decision that Kwok should not handle any similar political cases in the future. We can be certain that, if Carrie Lam is to appoint a judge to deal with NSL cases, she will definitely appoint judges like Kwok.

Talking about “presumption of innocence”, an article from the China Youth Daily newspaper in January 2017 stated, the percentage of cases with “not guilty” judgment in Hong Kong courts are as high as 45%, while in China, the percentage of such judgment in 2015 was 0.084% – that is in every 10,000 defendant, only 8 of them were proven innocent. If excluding the civil cases and only counting the criminal cases, the percentage would have been close to nil, which means, as long as the person has been charged by the law enforcement, he will only be found guilty by the court.

Just from these 2 points, one wonders: when NSL is to be enforced in Hong Kong, are Hongkongers still being protected by the law?

The intention of China rushing to launch NSL before LegCo nomination is too obvious – it is hard to imagine Hong Kong Special “Atrocious” Region government NOT using the “not supporting NSL” to disqualify candidates. In the existing nomination form for LegCo Election, “I declare that I will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region” is stated in the declaration. If it stops here, then a signed form would have been sufficient and a confirmation letter would not be needed.

If a confirmation letter is to be added, then the candidates might have to declare they support NSL, or more tactfully, support the National Laws in Annex III of the Basic Law. However, NSL (Hong Kong) is not a law that is being enforced countrywide, which does not meet the definition of Annex III, and therefore according to the Basic Law, it cannot be supported.

A confirmation with this detail is not one that any of the pro-democratic party members will sign, or it would deem them enemies of Hongkongers. There are no excuses as: First set my foot in LegCo so that I am in the game to fight; LegCo MUST have a voice from the opposition; let’s swallow this humiliation, it’s better than let the pro-establishment getting its way; if there is no opposition, the government will be even more presumptuous...all these reasons will only send the wrong message to the international society: that even the pro-democratic party has accepted NSL. Then, international sanctions are bound to slow down and all the blood shed by the freedom fighters since day one will be in vain.

What Hong Kong faces now is a matter of life and death. Nearly all the Western countries have voiced against NSL, with USA even emphasised that, the Hong Kong LegCo Election in September could lead to sanctions. In terms of “earth-scorching”, or “Laam5Caau2”, this is the ideal moment to reap. How can we let this pass us by? Any Hongkonger who has what it takes should apply to be a candidate regardless. The aim is to create an enormous scale of disqualifications of candidates. Who cares whether you would be elected, or drop out after being admitted. This is a chance to scream to the world whether the majority public opinion is for or against NSL.

Forget the primaries. Even if you win it, you would still have to face NSL in the election. So why not apply, then be disqualified because of opposing NSL. If you still haven’t been disqualified by then, it’s still not too late to reconsider hosting primaries.

【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