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

[時事英文] 死亡率（mortality rate）*、壓平曲線（flattening the curve）、活動限制 （lockdown）：如何理解這些術語？
　
Language goes beyond a sealed system governed by a rigid set of rules. To fully understand the meaning of a word, one must look further than connotation and denotation, and also take context into consideration. In this case, one needs to examine the social, political, economic, and even statistical contexts of the terms.
　
語言並非只是受嚴密規則所約束的封閉系統。為了充分理解一個單詞的意涵，我們不僅要瞭解其本義與引申義，同時還要考慮整個語境。在此一情況下，應要考察社會、政治、經濟甚至統計上的語境。
　
Does “confirmed cases,” for example, mean the same thing in every country before and during the coronavirus outbreak? What about “lockdowns”? Does it mean that the government is advising people to stay home or is someone nailing your door shut? Some food for thought when reading about the coronavirus outbreak.
　
例如，在冠狀病毒爆發前以及爆發期間，「確診病例」在各國是否具有相同的含義？那麼，封鎖呢？這是否意味著政府正建議人們留在家中，抑或有人正把你家大門釘上？以上是在閱讀疫情的相關資訊時所引人深思的一些事情。
　
*同學好心的補充說明：「mortality rate」通常指的是死亡率，而「fatality rate」則是（因罹患某疾病）致死率。兩者都是重要的死亡指標，但計算公式不相同。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
《紐約時報》報導：
　
Making sense of the coronavirus pandemic requires getting up to speed on semantics as much as epidemiology. Government officials and health care professionals toss off mentions of mortality rates, flattening the curve and lockdowns, assuming that we know what they mean. But the terms mean different things from country to country, state to state, even city to city and person to person. Officials use the same phrases about mass testing, caseloads and deaths to describe very different situations. That makes it hard to give clear answers to vital questions: How bad are things? Where are they headed?
　
1. make sense of… 理解……
2. get up to speed on 了解最新情況；跟上進度
3. toss off 輕而易舉地處理*
　
弄懂新型冠狀病毒大流行，既需要了解流行病學的最新情況，也需要在語義學上跟上形勢。「死亡率」、「壓平曲線」和「活動限制」等說法從政府官員和公共衛生專業人士的嘴裡脫口而出，他們假設大家都知道這些詞的意思。但對不同的國家、不同的州，甚至不同的城市和個人來說，這些術語有著不同的含義。 官員們使用「大規模檢測」、「病例數」和「死亡病例數」等相同的措辭，來描繪非常不同的情況。這令一些重要的問題難以得到明確的回答：情況有多糟糕？正在向什麼方向發展？
　
toss off: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toss%20off
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
People search for insight by comparing their countries to those that are further along in the epidemic. But if the terms are misleading or used in differing ways, the comparisons are flawed. Also, the statistics and vocabulary offer a false sense of precision while in reality, the information we have shows only a fraction of what’s going on. “The new cases or deaths each day are given as exact numbers, and we’re trained to take that at face value,” said Mark N. Lurie, an epidemiologist at Brown University’s School of Public Health. “But those are far from exact, they’re deeply flawed, and their meaning varies from place to place and from time period to time period.”
　
4. be further along in 在……上走得更深遠
5. at face value 根據外表；從表面上看
　
人們將自己的國家與那些經歷了疫情更多階段的國家進行比較，以求了解情況。但是，如果這些詞語使人產生誤解，或在使用方式上存在差異的話，這種比較就是錯誤的。此外，這些統計數據和詞彙給人以精準的假象，而現實是，我們所掌握的信息僅代表冰山一角。「每天的新增病例數或死亡人數都是以精準數字的形式通報的，我們被訓練成只看這些表面數字。」布朗大學公共衛生學院流行病學家馬克・盧裡說。「但這些數字遠非精準，而且有嚴重缺陷，它們的含義因不同的時間和地點而不同。」
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
I. Confirmed Cases 確診病例
　
Countries vary wildly in testing for the virus and how they report the numbers, and experts say most infections are going undetected. So the publicized national tallies are rough, incomplete pictures that may not be all that comparable. And that’s if countries are forthcoming about their data.
　
6. vary wildly in 在……上有極大的差異*
7. publicize 公布；宣傳
8. national tallies 國家的統計數據
9. incomplete pictures 不完整的狀況
10. forthcoming 樂於幫助的
　
各國在病毒檢測以及通報數字的方式上有很大差異，而且專家們說，大多數感染都沒有被發現。因此，各國公布的只是粗略的數據，這些並不完整的描繪也許沒有多少可比性。這還是在假設各國願意提供數據的情況下。

wildly: https://bit.ly/2wkgPjo
　
⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹
　
Officials in the United States say that China, which has reported more than 82,000 infections, has understated its epidemic. Until this week, the Chinese government excluded those patients who tested positive for the virus but had no symptoms. China also doesn’t say how many tests it has conducted, and doubts have been raised about whether it has tested extensively in Xinjiang, the province where it holds hundreds of thousands of Muslims in indoctrination camps. The Covid Tracking Project, run by The Atlantic, has tried to compile all the numbers in the United States and reports more than 1.2 million tests so far, over 3,600 per million people.
　
11. understate 未如實陳述；避重就輕地說
12. exclude 把……排除在外
13. indoctrination camps 再教育營
14. run by 由……經營
　
中國通報的累計確診病例超過８萬２千例，美國官員說，中國淡化了國內的疫情。直到本週前，中國政府一直把病毒檢測呈陽性但沒有癥狀的感染者不納入確診病例。中國也未公開接受檢測的人數，而且外界已對中國是否在新疆進行了大規模檢測表示懷疑，中國在那裡把數十萬穆斯林關進了拘禁營。《大西洋月刊》的新冠肺炎追蹤計劃試圖匯總美國的所有數據，它統計到的數字是，美國迄今為止進行了逾１２０萬例檢測，平均每百萬人超過３６００例。
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
II. Widespread Testing 大規模檢測

It matters not only how many people are tested, but also when, and who they are. Once again, countries differ, shaping what the numbers mean. A few countries, like South Korea, Australia and Singapore, got serious about mass testing early on. They used the information to do ambitious contact-tracing — finding and testing those who had recently been near infected people, even if they had no symptoms.
　
15. it matters 重要的是
16. not only……, but also…… 不僅……，而且……
17. get serious about 認真對待某事
18. early on 在早期
　
重要的不只是多少人做了檢測，檢測時間和檢測對象也很重要。各國在檢測時間和對象上也有不同，這讓數字的含義也有所不同。韓國、澳洲和新加坡等少數國家很早就開始認真地進行大規模檢測。他們利用這些信息嚴格追蹤接觸者，也就是找到並檢測那些親密接觸者，即使他們沒有癥狀。
　
⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹
　
But most nations with large numbers of cases have done less testing, waited longer to do it in bulk, and made little attempt at contact tracing. They find themselves playing catch-up with the virus, ramping up testing after their outbreaks had already mushroomed. They detect more cases, but by then it’s hard to tell how much of that growth is the expanding epidemic and how much is expanding surveillance. Unable to meet the demand, they often limit testing to the sickest patients and health workers.
　
19. in bulk 大量
20. make little attempt 幾乎未做嘗試
21. ramp up 增加*
22. mushroom (v.) 迅速增長；迅速發展*
23. meet the demand 滿足需求
24. limit……to 將……限制在……
　
但大多數存在大量確診病例的國家進行的檢測數量都比較少，都是等了更長時間後才開始進行大規模檢測，而且對追蹤接觸者的工作幾乎未做嘗試。這些國家發現自己在拚命追趕病毒的傳播，在疫情迅速蔓延後才加大了檢測力度。這些國家都檢測到了更多的病例，但此時已很難判斷新增病例中有多少是疫情不斷擴大的結果，有多少是擴大疫情監測的結果。由於無法滿足檢測需求，這些國家通常只能對病情最嚴重的患者以及衛生工作者做檢測。
　
ramp up: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/ramp-up
mushroom: https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/mushroom
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
III. Fatality Rates 致死率
　
It has been stated time and again: Italy and Spain have high mortality rates among coronavirus patients, Germany’s is low, and China’s is somewhere between. It may not be that simple. Counting the dead is as flawed and inconsistent as counting the infected. Recent reports say that mortuaries in Wuhan, China, where the disease was first discovered, have ordered thousands more urns than usual, suggesting a much higher death toll than the city’s official count, 2,535. The outbreaks in Wuhan, and parts of Italy and Spain, overwhelmed hospitals, forcing many sick people to ride it out at home. No one knows how many people have recovered or died without ever being tested. And if only the sickest patients are tested, then the number of infections will appear smaller and the percentage who die will seem higher.
　
25. time and again 屢次；一再
26. as flawed and inconsistent as 像……一樣存在缺陷與不一致
27. mortuary 停屍間（太平間）
28. urn 骨灰罈
29. suggest 暗示*
30. death toll 死亡人數
31. to ride it out 安然渡過（難關）*
　
一個反覆提及的說法是：義大利和西班牙的新冠病毒肺炎患者死亡率高，德國的低，中國的居中。情況也許並不那麼簡單。統計死亡人數和統計感染人數一樣存在缺陷和不一致的地方。最近有報導稱，武漢的殯儀館訂購的骨灰盒數比該市官方統計的２５３５例死亡高出好幾千，表明死亡人數遠高於官方公布的數字。新冠病毒最早就是在這座城市發現的。武漢以及義大利和西班牙部分地區的疫情使醫院不堪重負，許多患者被迫在家中渡過難關。沒人知道究竟有多少人在從未做檢測的情況下康復或死亡。如果只對病情最嚴重的患者做檢測的話，感染人數看上去會更低，而死亡率看起來將更高。
　
suggest: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/suggest
ride sth out: https://bit.ly/2Rd6Tj6
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
IV. The Peak 疫情高峰
　
Officials often talk about when the epidemic peaks or plateaus — when a country “flattens the curve.” But they rarely specify, the peak of what? And how can we be sure we’re past it? When an outbreak is growing unchecked, more people become infected and more die each day than the day before. On a graph, the curve showing the daily count of new cases has gone from rising sharply to moving sideways — the curve has flattened — and even begun to move downward. That is one corner being turned: The rate of the spread of the virus has slowed down. It takes longer to turn another: the rate of people dying.
　
32. from rising sharply to moving sideways 從急劇上升到橫向移動
33. turn the corner 好轉；度過難關*
　
官員們經常提疫情何時達到高峰或進入平台期，也就是一個國家「壓平曲線」的時候。但他們很少具體說明是什麼達到了高峰，以及我們怎麼能確定高峰已過？當疫情不受控制地發展時，每天的感染和死亡人數都比前一天多。曲線圖上顯示的每天新增病例數從急劇上升變得趨於平緩——曲線已被壓平——甚至開始下降。這是一個轉折點：病毒的傳播速度已經放緩。度過死亡人數的轉折點則需要更長的時間。
　
turn the corner: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/turn%20the%20corner
　
⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹
　
But even when those curves flatten, the epidemic still has not “peaked” by another crucial measure: the number of active cases. That figure continues to rise until the number of patients who either die or recover each day is larger than the number of new infections. To ease the staggering load on health care systems, the active cases curve must also flatten and then fall.
　
34. peak (v.) 使……達到頂峰
35. either……or…… 不是……就是……
36. staggering 沉重的；巨大的
　
但是，即使這些曲線已趨於平緩，疫情的另一個重要衡量指標——現存確診病例數——仍未達到「峰值」。在每天的死亡或康復患者人數超過新增感染人數之前，這個數字還將繼續上升。為緩解衛生系統的沉重負擔，現存確診病例數的曲線也必須先趨平，然後下降。
　
peak: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/peak_2
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
V. Lockdowns 封鎖（活動限制）
　
More than two billion people, including most Americans, are living under something usually called a lockdown. But there is no set definition of that word — or related terms like stay-at-home mandates and social distancing — so the details differ from place to place. The biggest differences may be in enforcement. Some places, like those in the United States with lockdowns, mostly rely on people to follow the rules without coercion. But Italy and others have deployed soldiers to ensure compliance, and French police have fined hundreds of thousands of people for violating restrictions. China, in addition to using security forces, mobilized an army of volunteers, ratcheting up social pressure to obey.
　
37. set definition 固定的定義
38. enforcement 實施；執行
39. rely on 仰賴；依靠
40. deploy 部署
41. compliance 服從
42. fine 處……以罰款（或罰金）
43. in addition to 除了……之外
44. mobilize 動員
45. ratchet sth up/down 逐步增加／減少
　
全球有２０多億人，包括大多數美國人正生活在一般被稱為「活動限制」的狀態下。但這個詞沒有固定的定義，其他的相關說法，比如政府的「待在家裡」和「保持社交距離」令也沒有明確的定義，所以各地的具體做法也不一樣。最大的不同可能在執行方面。有些地方，比如美國有限制令的地方，主要依靠人們自覺遵守，而非強制。但義大利等國為確保限制令的落實而動用了軍隊，法國警方還對數已十萬計的違反禁令者處以罰款。中國除了使用安全部隊外，還動員了一支志願者大軍來加大服從封鎖隔離措施的社會壓力。
　
⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹⊹
　
Italy’s experience shows the looseness of the term. It has gone through several phases of restrictions, applying them to more people, making them stricter and increasing enforcement. A few weeks ago, a person could travel around Italy for a valid work or family reason. Now, people are fined for nonessential walking too far from their homes. But each stage was widely called by the same name: lockdown.
　
46. looseness 鬆散
47. valid 確鑿的；合理的；有根據的；讓人信服的
　
義大利的經歷表明了這個詞語解釋上的自由。義大利的封鎖令經歷了幾個階段，適用範圍擴大到越來越多的人，封鎖及其執行也變得越來越嚴格。幾週前，人們還可以因為正當的工作或家庭原因在義大利旅行。現在，人們會因不必要的離家太遠的走動而被罰款。但禁令的每個階段用的都是同一個泛泛的名稱：活動限制。
　
《紐約時報》完整報導：https://nyti.ms/2XcCUeT

圖片出處：https://fxn.ws/34gwSeH
　
★★★★★★★★★★★★
　
時事英文大全：http://bit.ly/2WtAqop
　
如何使用「時事英文」：https://bit.ly/3a9rr38
　
＃疫情英文

ultra vires

【回覆選舉主任的追問】（Please scroll down for English version）

（選舉主任於11月28日下午四點的追問： https://goo.gl/unqfuP ）

我們剛才已經回覆選舉主任，內容如下。感謝法夢成員黃先生協助，大家可參考他的文章：

村代表唔係《基本法》第104條所列既公職喎！
https://bit.ly/2AuHXKD

全文：

「
袁先生:
就你於 2018 年 11 月 28 日來函，現謹覆如下:

█(一)鄉郊代表選舉主任無權提出與確保提名有效無關的問題

1. 我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。謹闡釋如 下‥

2. 《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條規定，「除非提名某人為鄉郊地 區的選舉的候選人的提名表格載有或附有一項由該人簽署的聲明，示明該人會擁護《基本法》和保證效忠香港特別行政區，否則該人不得 獲有效提名。」

《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條則規定，為了「令[選 舉]主任信納 ... 提名是有效的」，「選舉主任可要求獲提名為候選人的人提供提名表格沒有涵蓋而該主任認為需要的資料」。

3. 區慶祥法官在「陳浩天案」處理過《立法會條例》及 《選舉管 理委員會(選舉程序)(立法會)規例》下的類似條文。即使退一萬步，假設區慶祥在該案中所陳述的法律屬正確(即選舉主任擁有調查候選人 政治信念的權力，而這並無違反人權)，「陳浩天案」中有關立法會選 舉的邏輯，亦不可能同樣適用於鄉郊代表選舉。

區慶祥法官考慮過他所認為的立法歷史後(包括籌委會 1996 及1997 年區生認為對立法會選舉方式具約束力的決定)，將《立法會條 例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條解讀為是為了執行《基本法》第 104 條而訂立， 所以裁定選舉主任在該條下有權調查候選人實質上是否真誠擁護《基 本法》及效忠中華人民共和國香港特別行政區。

但鄉郊代表並非《基本法》第 104 條中列出的'high office holders of the HKSAR'(「陳浩天案」判詞第 42 段;即「行政長官、主要官員、行政會議成員、立法會議員、各級法院法官和其他司法人員」)。即使是人大常委會 2016 年 11 月 7 日通過對《基本法》第 104 條的解釋， 亦僅指「[第 104 條]規定的宣誓 ... 是參選或者出任該條所列公職的 法定要求和條件。」

4. 再者，立法會在訂立《村代表選舉條例》(2014 年改稱《鄉郊代表選舉條例》)時，完全並無如訂立《立法會條例》時般，考慮或 討論過當中第 24 條下有關聲明規定的內容，背後更無任何有約束力 的決定，要求村代表/鄉郊代表須擁護《基本法》及效忠中華人民共 和國香港特別行政區。

反而時任民政事務局局長何志平 2002 年在動議二讀《村代表選舉條例草案》時清晰地指出，「本條例草案的目的，是為村代表選舉 制定法律條文，以確保選舉公開、公平和公正，並符合《 香港人權法案條例》和《性別歧視條例》的要求」(2002 年 10 月 9 日立法會 會議過程正式紀錄頁 64)。

5. 無論如何，即使區慶祥法官亦須承認，任何有關的聲明規定， 必須從選舉、被選權等基本權利的背景下理解(「陳浩天案」判詞第 80 段)。在缺乏類似所謂立法歷史和《基本法》條文的支持下，實在 難以接受《村代表選舉條例》/《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條具有 跟《立法會條例》第 40(1)(b)(i)條一樣的效力(假設第 24 條本身是合 憲的話)。

法律上，選舉主任只可為了相關賦權條文的目的行使其法定權力:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'
- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting

Wade and Forsyth.

(亦可參考 Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

在這方面，《選舉程序(鄉郊代表選舉)規例》第 7(3)條的目的，是確保提名屬有效。如果《鄉郊代表選舉條例》第 24 條在正確的理解 下，並無強制候選人實質上證明自己擁護《基本法》和保證效忠中華 人民共和國香港特別行政區，亦即提名的有效性，並不依賴候選人的 實質政治信念，《規例》第 7(3)條自然就不可能賦權選舉主任作出與 此有關的提問，否則他或她行事的目的，就是法律並無授權、亦無預 見(假設《立法會條例》具此效果)的政治審查，而非確保提名的有 效性。

故此，我認為你並無權力提出與確保提名有效無關的問題。

█(二)回應提問(a):你認為我沒有正面回答你的問題，我並不同意你的說法，因為你的問題帶着錯誤的假設。你的問題假設「自決前 途」只能為一個特定機制，因此才有所謂主張香港獨立是否其中一個 「選項」的錯誤設想。然而，正如我昨日的回覆所指，「我提倡或支 持推動《基本法》和政制的民主化改革，包括但不限於修改《基本法》 158 及 159 條，作為中共封殺真普選後，港人自決前途的目標」;與 此同時，我沒有主張「香港獨立」。

█(三)回應提問(b):你在今日的回信中指「並沒有要求你就其他人的行為或主張表達意見」，不過，提問(b)的意思正是要求任何人若 希望成為鄉郊代表選舉候選人，不單自己不可主張港獨，也要明確地 反對甚至禁止其他參選人有相關主張。我認為這個要求違反《基本法》 及《香港人權法案條例》對言論自由的保障，亦顯然超出《鄉郊代表 選舉條例》對參選人的要求。

請你儘快就我於 2018 年 11 月 22 日提交的提名表格、11 月 27 日的回覆及上述的答覆，決定我的提名是否有效。若你需要其他的補充資料，請以電郵聯絡我。我就你的查詢保留一切權利。

2018 年 11 月 28 日
二零一九年鄉郊一般選舉
元崗新村選舉參選人
朱凱廸
」

【Reply to More Questions from Returning Officer】

Mr. Yuen,

I hereby reply to your letter dated 28 November:

█(1) Returning Officer of Rural Representative Election has no power to make any inquiries not made with a view to ensuring the validity of nomination

1. I consider that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination. My reasons are as follows.

2. Section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance provides that “[a] person is not validly nominated as a candidate for an election for a Rural Area unless the nomination form includes or is accompanied by a declaration, signed by the person, to the effect that the person will uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.”

On the other hand, section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation provides that, “in order [for the Returning Officer] to be satisfied … as to the validity of the nomination”, “[t]he Returning Officer may require a person who is nominated as a candidate to furnish such information which is not covered by the nomination form as that Officer considers necessary”.

3. In Chan Ho Tin v Lo Ying Ki Alan [2018] 2 HKLRD 7, Mr Justice Thomas Au Hing-cheung (“Au J”) considered similar provisions in the Legislative Council Ordinance and the Electoral Affairs Commission (Electoral Procedure) (Legislative Council) Regulation. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law as stated by Au J in that case were correct (namely that a Returning Officer has the power to inquire into the political beliefs of a candidate, without violating human rights), it is clear that the reasoning as applied in the case of Chan Ho Tin, which relates solely to Legislative Council elections, cannot be extended by analogy to Rural Representative Elections.

Having considered what he thought to be the legislative history (including two Resolutions passed by the Preparatory Committee for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in 1996 and 1997 respectively which Au J believed to be binding), Au J interpreted section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance as having been enacted for the purpose of implementing Article 104 of the Basic Law, and decided on that basis that the Returning Officer had under that section the power to inquire whether a candidate, as a matter of substance, genuinely upholds the Basic Law and pledges allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

The important distinction, however, is that rural representatives are not those “high office holders of the HKSAR” listed in Article 104 of the Basic Law (Chan Ho Tin at para 42; namely “the Chief Executive, principal officials, members of the Executive Council and of the Legislative Council, judges of the courts at all levels and other members of the judiciary”). Even the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, in its Interpretation of Article 104 of the Basic Law adopted on 7 November 2016, merely states that ‘the legal requirements and preconditions [contained in Article 104 are] for standing for election in respect of or taking up the public office specified in the Article.’

4. Further, unlike when enacting the Legislative Council Ordinance, the Legislative Council in enacting the Village Representative Election Ordinance (renamed in 2014 the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) never discussed nor gave any consideration whatsoever to the content of the requirement of declarations, still less to binding resolution of any sort which would compel Village Representatives (now Rural Representatives) to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China.

What the then Secretary for Home Affairs, Patrick Ho Chi-ping, did clearly pointed out, in moving the Second Reading of the Village Representative Election Bill in 2002, is that “[t]he purpose of the Bill is to bring Village Representative (VR) elections under a statutory framework in order to ensure that they are conducted in an open, fair and honest manner and that they are consistent with the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the Sex Discrimination Ordinance” (Legislative Council, Official Record of Proceedings (9 October 2002) at p 90)

5. In any event, even Au J has had to concede that any relevant requirement of declarations “must be viewed against the involvement of the fundamental election right” (Chan Ho Tin at para 80). Here, in the absence of similar so-called legislative history or Basic Law provisions in support, it is difficult to accept that section 24 of the Village Representative Election Ordinance (now the Rural Representative Election Ordinance) is intended to have the same effect as section 40(1)(b)(i) of the Legislative Council Ordinance (on the assumption that section 24 were not unconstitutional).

In law, the Returning Officer may only exercise her statutory powers for the public purpose for which the powers were conferred:

'Statutory power conferred for public purposes is conferred as it were upon trust, not absolutely - that is to say, it can validly be used only in the right and proper way which Parliament when conferring it is presumed to have intended . . .'

- Porter v Magill [2002] 2 AC 357 at para 19 per Lord Bingham quoting Wade and Forsyth.

(See also Wong Kam Yuen v Commissioner for Television and Entertainment Licensing [2003] 2 HKC 21 (HKCFI) at para 21 per Hartmann J.)

In this regard, the object of section 7(3) of the Electoral Procedure (Rural Representative Election) Regulation is to ensure that a candidate’s nomination is valid. If, properly construed, section 24 of the Rural Representative Election Ordinance does not have the effect of compelling candidates to prove, as a matter of substance, that they uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, then the validity of the nomination does not turn on the substantive political beliefs of the candidate. Section 7(3) of the Regulation, in turn, logically cannot have empowered the Returning Officer to make inquiries in this connection, for otherwise the Officer would be acting for the purpose of political screening, which is neither authorised nor envisaged by law (assuming that the Legislative Council Ordinance does, by contrast, have this effect), rather than of ensuring the validity of the nomination.

Accordingly, it is my considered view that you have no power to make any inquiries insofar as they are not made with a view to ensuring the validity of my nomination.

█(2) In answer to question (a): you take the view that I have not directly answered your question, but I do not agree, because your said question carries mistaken assumptions. Your question assumes "self-determination" can only take the form of one designated mechanism, and hence the mistaken hypothesis on whether Hong Kong independence constitute an "option" for such mechanism. However, as stated in my reply yesterday, "I advocate or support moving for democratic reform of the Basic Law and the political system, including but not limited to amending articles 158 and 159 of the Basic Law, as a goal for the Hong Kong people in determining their own future after the Communist Party of China banned genuine universal suffrage"; at the same time, I do not advocate for "Hong Kong independence".

█(3) In answer to question (b): You stated in your reply today "did not require (me) to express opinion on other people's actions or propositions", but the meaning of question (b) is precisely a requirement on anyone, if they wish to become eligible as a candidate for Rural Representative elections, not only to not advocate for Hong Kong independence themselves, but must also clearly oppose or prohibit other nominees in having related propositions. I am of the view that this requirement violates the protections on freedom of speech under the Basic law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, and clearly exceeds the requirements imposed by the Rural Representative Election Ordinance on persons nominated as a candidate.

Please confirm as soon as possible the validity of my nomination based on my nomination form submitted on 22 November 2018 and my replies to your questions dated 27 November 2018. Should you require other supplemental information, please contact me via email. I reserve all my rights in relation to your inquiry.

情人橋是…過橋會脫單的意思嗎？Get a lover after you crossing the bridge! 😘🌉😚
🔼位置：台中市北屯區部子路366號
Someone told me that the bridge with his reflection on the floor will become a shape of heart, that’s why it’s named as Lovers Bridge. I’m not sure if I saw the heart, or not. But I agree that the pink color is adorable & romantic for lovers. Could you imagine the heart? If you could, I'm assuming that you’re a sentimental guy! Did I get the right answer?🌈
#missrainbow #大坑情人橋