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

葉太是前高官，熟知政府運作和昔日議會的資料及紀錄。可惜政府於是次修例的解說過程中，並沒有人像葉太般能清晰、有理有節地指出泛民的謬誤，在此感謝葉太的敢言，讓市民看清真相。

#香港幸好有葉太

Dear friends, an English summary of the key points I made in the LegCo adjournment debate is set out below:

1.Rebutting the pan democrats’ objections to the government’s fugitive offenders amendment legislation, I pointed out that arising from two criminal cases (the Telford Gardens murder case and the Cheung Tse-keung kidnap case) in which the suspects fled to mainland China after committing the offences, Martin Lee Chu-ming, then a Member of the Legislator, moved a motion in LegCo on 9 December 1998 urging the government to discuss and conclude an agreement with Beijing on rendition arrangements between mainland China and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction”. The wording is as follows:

“That this Council deeply regrets that, while the cases involving the kidnapping of two business tycoons in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) and the murder of five persons in the
Telford Gardens, which are being handled in the Mainland in accordance with the Criminal Law of the People’s Republic of China, have caused widespread concern among Hong Kong people, the SAR Government has not tried its utmost to seek the return of those who are suspected of violating the law in the SAR by the Basic Law; this Council also urges the SAR Government to expeditiously discuss and conclude an agree-ment with the Central People’s Government, on the basis of internationally agreed principles, on rendition arrangements between the Mainland and the SAR, so as to restore the public’s confidence in the SAR’s judicial jurisdiction.”

2.All the legislators from the Democratic Parry supported this motion. Who made an about-turn in opposing the government’s amendment legislation
to facilitate the rendition of fugitive offenders and mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China? Who have been lying to the people of Hong Kong?

3.As Secretary for Security, I had, on 3 December 198, reported to LegCo’s Security Panel the government’s plan to conclude an agreement on the rendition of fugitive offenders with mainland China. Then Chief Secretary Anson Chan undertook to expedite action to reach an agreement with the mainland.

4. All decisions about rendition are ultimately made by the courts. Two recent examples: a high court in New Zealand rejected an extradition request from China to extradite an ethnic Korean New Zealand citizen suspected of murdering a sex worker in Shanghai on the ground that the court did not believe that he would have access to “fair trial” in China. A court in Scotland rejected an extradition request from Taiwan to extradite a British national accused of killing a newspaper agent by drink driving on the ground that the court did not believe that he would
have non-discriminatory treatment in prison.

5. The Financial Action Task Force established under the auspices of G20 had described the lack of rendition arrangement and agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with mainland China as a “significant deficit” in Hong Kong’s fight against money laundering and terrorist financing.

6. On the question of pressure on judges to kowtow to Beijing, why should judges fear pressure? They are appointed by the Chief Executive with approval by the Legislative Council. They are well trained; well paid and have security of tenure. They are only accountable for the judgments they made which would go down in the common law as part of the
jurisprudence on extradition. They are not accountable to Beijing.

7. On the need to formally “withdraw” the fugitive offenders bill, I pointet out that then Chief Executive Tung Chee-hua used wording similar to that of the current administration in announcing the postponement of the second reading debate of the national security bill on 7 July 2003. On 2 October 2003, then Secretary for Security Ambrose Lee wrote to House Committee Chairperson Selina Chow to explain that to give effect to Mr.Tung’s announcement of “withdrawal” of the bill on 5 September, he would not give notice under LegCo Rules of Procedure to resume second reading debate of the bill within the current term of the Legislative Council.

8. Thus it is clear that the current administration followed the same wording and procedure as in 2003. Clear indication that second reading debate
would not be resumed in the rest of the legislative term is effective “withdrawal”. Insistence on withdrawal is merely a ploy adopted by the opposition to dial up pressure on the administration to undermine its ability to govern.

9.The orderly demonstrations carried out recently by large numbers of of Hong Kong people fully testify to the abundance of rights and freedoms in Hong Kong. But I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence after the mass protest on 9 June, the violent attack on the Police on 12 June, the repeated actions taken by unruly protesters to lay siege to the Police Headquarters, the Immigration Tower, the Revenue Tower and the Justice Place. These protesters have become urban “bandits”, disrupting social order and damaging Hong Kong’s overseas reputation as a safe city. The attacks on Police Headquarters, with a view to undermining Police morale, are particularly vicious. These protesters have committed multiple offences and should be brought to justice.

-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-\

(中文版本發言全文)

【誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議？讓市民看清真相】

多謝代理主席女士，我發言是支持張華峰議員的議案，我完全同意張議員議案指出，政府現時當務之急是盡快恢復社會秩序，穩定營商環境，採取及時的應對措施 ，令市民可以恢復正常的生活。我亦很高興藉這個休會辯論的機會，向市民講真話，講清講楚，告訴市民那些人一直講大話，瞞騙市民！可惜尹兆堅議員不在席，我想告訴所有的泛民議員，究竟誰是第一人敦促特區政府與內地商討移交逃犯協議，以及刑事司法互助安排呢？正是李柱銘議員！

1998年香港出現了兩宗轟動社會的刑事案件，第一宗是德福花園的「五屍命案」，風水師李育輝殺了五名女士後逃到內地，被逮捕及處決；第二宗是「張子強案」，張子強涉嫌綁架和囤積軍火，同樣逃到內地，然後被逮捕及處決。當時立法會非常震驚，要求特區政府盡快與內地商討刑事司法互助安排，例如1998年12月3 日，我擔任保安局局長，向立法會保安事務委員會交代，要與內地訂明有關安排，並與今日的特區政府一樣，承諾所有安排必須符合「雙重犯罪」原則、指定罪行、不得再移交第三國家的保障、死刑及政治罪行或受政治迫害一律豁免移交的保障，就此，根據保安事務委員會會議文件編號CB(2)748/98-99(02) 第十段有清楚說明：「鑑於公眾對近日張子強和李育輝等案件的關注，亦正如政務司司長所承諾，政府會盡力加快工作，以期早日與內地就此重要事項達成協議。」當時政務司司長就是陳方安生女士。

接下來，李柱銘先生亦在1998年12月9 日動議議案。李議員動議的議案內容如下：「由於兩名富商在香港特別行政區（“特 區”）被綁架案及德福花園五屍命案均在內地法院以《中華人民共和國刑法》審理，引起港人極大關注，但特區政府卻未盡全力爭取將在特區境內涉嫌違法的人士，交還特區法院審理，以捍衛《基本法 》賦予特區的司法管轄權，對此，本會深表遺憾；同時，本會促請特區政府以國際社會公認的原則為基礎，盡快就中港兩地移交疑犯的安排與中央人民政 府進行商討及達成協議，恢復港人對特區司法管轄權的信心。」

因此，我真的要問問尹兆堅議員，究竟是誰人表演「四川變臉」？李柱銘去美國告狀時，有沒有告訴美國人他是提出修例的第一人？他當年不斷敦促特區政府和內地達成協議！我則堂堂正正光明正大地多次到北京開會，商討移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排，會議後每次都是光明磊落向本會匯報。為何對這些事實你們全部失憶？是誰欺騙市民？拍攝影片誤導市民，宣傳香港人如何肉隨砧板上，隨時像動物一樣被移送內地！

事實上，所有案例都證明移交逃犯是需要經過法庭冗長而複雜的程序。最近新西蘭的高等法院否決移交一名韓裔新西蘭公民，該人士涉嫌在上海謀殺一名性工作者，而這案件已由2011年審理至今。蘇格蘭的法庭也拒絕了台灣一個引渡要求，有關一名英國人在台灣醉酒駕駛，撞死一名派報紙的職員。由此可見，最終決定權在法庭手上，並非行政長官一人決定。亦有指法官備受壓力，試問法官受高深教育，良好的司法訓練，身受納稅人供給不錯的報酬，他們當然必須承擔責任。我們每個人都有壓力，法官承擔責任，幫助香港人解決法律問題，是他們應有的責任。因此，代理主席，我認為應該就此向市民講清講楚，是誰人不斷向市民講大話？誤導市民！將這條應該做的法例，抹黑成一條所謂「送中」的惡法！

亦看看國際社會怎麼說，Financial Action Task Force， 即G20集團轄下的「財務行動特別組織」，素來批評香港與內地沒有移交逃犯協議和刑事司法互助安排。過往，他們直指這是一個significant deficit ，即一個「重大缺憾」。近來，可能因為要和應香港反對修例的聲音，則改為 legal shortcoming，即一個「法律上的缺憾」。不過，我們仍然需要完善這些法律，所以政府不撤回是正確的。那些要求行政會議成員辭職的人，全部皆作出不公平的指責。這條例本身完全沒有錯，但大家都同意，政府在宣傳和解釋這條條例方面，乃至為市民反駁種種謊言的工作，做得嚴重不足。

說到撤回，我們看看當年政府處理23條的時候所用的語言。2003年7月7日，時任行政長官董建華先生發表聲明：「我即時召開行政會議特別會議。經過詳細商討後，基於自由黨的立場，我們決定將條例草案押後恢復二讀，並在未來一段時間加強向市民解釋修訂案內容。」其實這個方針與現時政府無異，一樣是將其押後並且加強解釋，並沒有表示撤回。再看看我的接任人李少光局長向內務委員會主席周梁淑怡女士致函的內容，信函的日期是2003年10月2日，李局長寫道：「為在程序上落實前文所提及，行政長官會同行政會議的決定，我現確認我不擬根據《議事規則》第 54(5)條發出預告，以在本屆立法會任期內恢復該草案的二讀辯論。草案因此會根據《議事規則》第 11(4)條及《立法會條例》（第 542 章）第 9(4)條，在本屆立法會任期完結時失效。」即是和現在特區政府的說法一樣，繼續開放式的諮詢去解釋這條條例，沒有時間表，不發出預告恢復二讀，任由這條例「自然死亡」，實質上等同不會再推動修例，等同撤回。

為什麼當時沒有要求撤回的爭論呢？我認為今天有人強烈要求撤回，根本別有用心！為了找理由不斷衝擊政府部門，除了衝擊警察總部之外，又衝擊入境事務大樓、稅務大樓，今天亦有超過100人衝擊律政中心。他們的目的到底與這條條例有什麼關係呢？其實只不過是用「撤回」作一個藉口，不斷擾亂香港秩序，甚至令香港在國際社會失色，令許多希望到香港做生意或旅遊的人，感到香港是一個不安全的城市，他們的用心實在非常惡毒！「撤回」是一個要求律政司下台的藉口，假如律政司下台，他們就會要求整個特區政府領導班子總辭，所有支持過修訂條例的行政會議成員、立法會議員，全部都應該總辭，不如讓泛民和黃之鋒接手特區政府，這就是他們的最終目的。代理主席，所以我一定要藉這個休會辯論的機會，向市民講清楚這背後的陰謀。

當然，我要強烈譴責近日這些示威人士衝擊警察總部。過去兩星期有大部分市民和平遊行，充分彰顯香港擁有高度自由，以及人權得到高度保障，這是我們香港人皆引以為榮的核心價值。不過，在這些和平的示威遊行之後，有些不法之徒聚眾衝擊政府部門，特別是衝擊警隊，他們的用心非常惡毒！他們知道警隊是維護香港治安和秩序最重要的支柱，他們就故意不斷打擊警隊的士氣，甚至侵犯他們的私隱，包括網上「起底」和 網上欺凌。昨晚市民在愛丁堡廣場和平集會後，有眾多穿黑衣的人士走入地鐵站，他們最後走到軍器廠街再次包圍警察總部。我見到一名正在上班的警員，他沒有戴口罩，光明正大地上班，但竟然被人追打！不過，他無畏無懼，直視這些示威者。其實這些人已經觸犯多項刑事罪行，包括襲警、非法集會、刑事毀壞，警方應該將他們繩之於法，不可以因為你「聲大」你「人多」就可以獲得特赦。

代理主席，就此我感到特別震驚，為何一位前政務司司長能夠說出特赦及釋放違法人士，此等嚴重衝擊法治的言論呢？我們一位前同事余黎青萍女士，她以英語寫了一篇非常感人的聲明，在我們前政務官的圈子裏流傳。她表示 disappointed by 這位前同事陳方安生的所作所為！我亦 disappointed by 民主黨的變臉與謊言！李柱銘到美國告狀，有否告知美國人，他是第一人支持與內地簽訂移交逃犯協議，和達至司法互助？這些真相應該告知市民。

代理主席，這些近日的示威者已經成為一股流寇，不斷去衝擊各個政府部門。我懷疑他們真正目的就是要拖垮政府，傷害我們整體市民的利益。因此，我懇請各位善良的市民，看清楚真相，不要支持這些破壞香港繁榮安定的壞分子，不要參加他們的集會，亦希望各位父母約束您們的子女，並解說給他們知道，和平示威沒有問題，但一遇到出現亂象，應該帶他們離開現場，以免他們身陷險境。

根據計算，100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東；200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。

順道一提香港15～30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看，兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。

另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair，幾天內湧進40萬人次，照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。（http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg）

當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車，幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。

而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。

順道一提，因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現：

https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/

EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)

每年的一月十六日是美國的宗教自由日！美國開國元老湯瑪斯‧傑佛遜起草的《維吉尼亞宗教自由法》在1786年1月16日頒布，距今已有232年的時間。該法建立宗教自由，後來並成為美國憲法第一修正案的基礎。美國和台灣都享有高度的宗教自由，堪稱國際社會的表率。美國國務院發布的國際宗教自由報告也肯定台灣的宗教自由，2016年有關台灣的部分請見：https://goo.gl/tTF8pz

January 16 marked #ReligiousFreedomDay in the United States! This day commemorates 232 years since the adoption of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom on January 16, 1786. This statute provided for religious liberty and later became a foundation for the First Amendment. Religious freedoms in places like the United States and Taiwan serve as shining examples and beacons of hope for the international community. Check out the U.S. Department of State’s 2016 Religious Freedom Report for Taiwan here: https://goo.gl/tTF8pz