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

【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

一封給國家地理頻道「Dog: Impossible」節目負責人的公開信:

An open letter to the leadership team of Nat Geo Wild Dog Impossible:

Translate: Yu-Hwa Su 翻譯: 蘇昱華
Proof: Yen Ke 校對: 葛雁

The International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants (IAABC) applauds National Geographic’s mission to offer intelligent, relevant and captivating non-fiction entertainment. This is a crucial objective, especially as an introduction to children and viewers largely relying on television for their scientific information.
國際動物行為諮詢師協會（IAABC）對於國家地理頻道致力於提供電視觀眾正確知識與科學內容表示讚賞。這是一個非常重要的目標，特別是對依賴電視得到這些知識的兒童與其他觀眾們來說。

However, your stated mission is in direct conflict with your show Dog: Impossible. In fact, the irresponsible treatment of the dogs and people on this show flies in the face of all best practices in animal training and behavior. Rather than promoting science and scientifically-proven methodology, Dog: Impossible sacrifices learning science for more dramatic television.
然而，貴頻道所提供的節目「Dog: Impossible」卻與貴頻道「提供正確的科學知識」的一貫立場衝突。節目中對犬隻以及飼主的不負責處理方式與應有的動物訓練及行為操作的準則相違背。「Dog: Impossible」並沒有提倡科學以及經科學驗證的方法，這節目犧牲了對科學的學習，轉而追求吸睛的電視節目效果。

Matt Beisner appears to have no credentials or education in training and behavior, yet he refers to himself as a behaviorist. His claim that “energy is the one language that every animal on the planet speaks” makes clear he is not one.
Matt Beisner並沒有動物訓練或行為學的相關學習經歷與證照，卻宣稱自己是一位行為學家。從他的主張：「能量是地球上所有動物都會使用的共通語言」，便能明白他並不是行為學家。

His statement, “You don’t need tricks, you don’t need treats, you don’t need force,” shows just how unaware of his own actions he is. His misuse of scientific terminology leads viewers to believe they are learning demonstrated, safe and accepted strategies in helping their dogs. In fact, Mr. Beisner is forcing these dogs from start to finish of each episode. His own “tricks” are that of over-stressing dogs until they’re in a state referred to in psychology and science as “learned helplessness.”
他主張「你不需要技巧、零食、或蠻力 (去訓練狗)」，這顯示出他對於自己的所做所為一無所知。他對科學術語的濫用也會誤導觀眾，讓觀眾以為他們正在學習經證實有效而且安全可接受的方法來幫助狗狗。但這位訓練師在每一集節目上從頭到尾都是在逼迫這些狗，而他所擁有的「技巧」，就是讓狗進入過度緊迫的狀態，直到牠們進入心理學和科學上所指的「習得無助」（learned helplessness）狀態。

Learned helplessness occurs when a subject endures repeated aversive stimuli beyond their control. Originally thought to show a subject's acceptance of their powerlessness, for more than half a century it’s been known instead to be the emotional “shutting down” of the subject. Anxiety, clinical depression, and related mental illnesses are common consequences of this technique in humans.
「習得無助」發生在動物沒有任何控制權，且重複地被施加嫌惡刺激的時候。最初，人們認為習得無助狀態意味著動物「接受」了自身無法改變、無能為力的情形，超過半個世紀以來，人們認為這是動物情緒「關機（shutting down）」的表現。在人類身上，習得無助的常見結果包含焦慮、憂鬱症、以及相關的心理疾病。

Allow us to note some aspects of the trailer and his shows, but first, to point out a few well-documented and commonly understood aspects of dog behavior so that we may better make our points understood.
在我們解釋為何我們認為此節目的預告片與內容不適當之前，我們希望先闡述一些正確的犬隻行為常識，以便您能更理解我們的觀點。

Canine body language indicating stress and severe stress:
顯示出壓力以及嚴重緊迫的犬隻肢體語言：

Compressed bodies
Dry, raspy panting
Wide, open eyes with dilated pupils
Heavy drooling
“Whipping” head and body back, pushing off a handler in order to get away
Growling
Fighting
Biting
縮緊身體
急促的喘氣
睜大雙眼、散瞳
大量流口水
甩頭、用前爪推抱著狗的人以退後、試圖掙脫
低吼
打架
開咬

Eleven seconds into the trailer, Mr. Beisner rubs his hands together, smiling, and says, “This is going to be gnarly.” All professionals know from that statement what the series will spotlight: A poorly (if at all) educated non-professional pushing dogs way beyond therapeutic limits, in the name of “results.”
在預告片11秒的地方，Beisner先生搓手並笑著說「等一下會很精采喔」。所有專業人士都知道這句話代表這個節目的亮點將會是：一名缺乏適當教育的訓練師，逼迫狗到超過其能承受的極限，並把這樣的結果稱為是良好的改善。

Flooding, the term for inundating a subject with their fears, phobias and triggers, is ethically questionable at best, cruel and unnecessary, always. There's also a common danger of spontaneous recovery of the phobia. This is because flooding doesn't replace the fear-response with a different response, it just replaces it with no response. “No response” is simply suppression, not cure.
「洪水法」，指的是故意將動物置於恐慌或恐懼的觸發刺激情境，這樣的方法不道德、殘忍、而且沒必要。另外，恐懼的自發性回復（spontaneous recovery）也是洪水法常見的風險，這是因為洪水法並沒有將害怕的反應重新制約成其他不同的情緒行為，它只是讓動物沒有反應。「沒有反應」只是壓抑，動物並沒有因此感到不害怕或恐慌。

Throughout the trailer dogs are flooded with aversive stimuli such as other dogs, people and equipment, something an ethical professional would not, and could not do per any answerable guidelines of animal training and behavior care.
在整個預告片中，狗狗被迫接受各種嫌惡刺激的洪水法訓練，例如其他狗、其他人類和物品，這是具有道德的專業訓練人員不會做的，任何負責任的動物訓練及行為照護準則也不會如此建議。

Systematic desensitization and counterconditioning, gradual exposure to the feared object, and replacement of a negative emotional association with a more pleasant one, are the recommended techniques used to treat such fear and aggression cases, per all legitimate veterinary, training and behavior organizations.
系統性減敏與反制約，也就是逐步與少量的讓狗接觸其本來會害怕的事物，並且將引發的少量負面情緒與其非常喜愛的事物配對給予，是用來處理恐懼及攻擊案例的建議方法，也是每個好的獸醫師、訓練及行為機構會推薦的方法。

Beisner’s statement that “We know at the Zen Yard that dogs help other dogs come out of their shell and face their fear and get past their aggression” isn’t just scientifically unsupportable, his words ring hollow during the very scene playing while he says those words: Beisner restraining one dog, while his co-host pulls a leashed dog to the first in a completely unnatural gesture perhaps intended to either mimic natural dog greeting (it doesn’t) or to flood the heavily drooling dog who is unable to move or get away. The dogs end up in a fight. They have been set up to fail, and the outcome is inevitable.
Beisner宣稱「我們在Zen Yard（他的訓練中心）知道狗會去幫助其他狗融入外界、面對牠們的恐懼並且克服攻擊行為」，這句話不只是缺乏科學支持，在影片中他講出這句話時搭配的畫面，亦表現出他的說詞缺乏支持：Beisner限制了第一隻狗的行動，由節目的共同主持人以牽繩將另一隻狗以一個完全不自然的姿勢拉到第一隻狗身邊，他們可能是在試著模仿狗狗自然的社交打招呼行為（但並不是），或使用洪水法訓練那隻狂流口水（顯示牠很緊張）並且無法逃脫的狗。最終兩隻狗打起來，訓練師製造的這個情境，讓失敗的結果無可避免。

In the trailer, the assistant host, Stefanie DiOrio, states, “Nervousness can easily turn to fear which can lead to aggression.” This is an accurate statement, which is why it’s so confusing that the entire show would be predicated on pushing dogs to the very edge of survivable stress and into predictable aggression, doubling down on the issues that their owners are struggling with.
在預告片中，節目的共同主持人Stefanie DiOrio說「緊張不安很容易變成真正的恐懼，並且導致攻擊行為」，這句話是正確的，但也讓人更加困惑為何整個節目的走向都在將狗推向牠們所能承受壓力的極限、觸發根本可預測的攻擊行為、並使飼主所面對的問題加倍惡化。

We know that the dramatic changes in behavior, from stressed and wildly aggressive to “calm” dogs, make for compelling TV. To an average pet owner it looks like these dogs are making huge improvements. All clients just want their dog to “Stop being aggressive.” However, we also know that behavior suppression is not the same as behavior modification, that a stressed and shut-down dog is a more dangerous animal than one who is actively showing aggression, and that the long-term prognosis of this kind of intervention is poor for both the client and their dog.
我們知道行為上戲劇性的變化，從一隻緊迫且兇猛攻擊的狗轉變成“冷靜”的狗，這個過程代表了高收視率，在不十分了解行為學的飼主眼中看來，這些狗狗似乎有巨大的進步。飼主都只是希望他們的狗「不要再有攻擊性」，然而我們也知道單純抑制攻擊行為的出現，並不是真正的行為改善技術。舉例來說一隻高壓力但看似沒有反應的狗，遠比一隻會表現出攻擊性的狗要危險許多 (譯註: 因為這樣的狗可能會沒有徵兆地開咬)，因此這種抑制攻擊行為的訓練法，以長遠來看對飼主以及狗狗都是有害的。

It is also worth pointing out that, like his predecessor, Mr Beisner’s assessment of cause for much of the issues he’s asked to address is simple, made especially clear in episode 4 where he not only saves a dog, he “saves a marriage:” Women are unable to effectively lead, must be stronger, must change their ways.
另一個值得注意的事是Beisner先生，如同他在同一個頻道的前輩，西薩，對導致問題的原因評估也過於簡化，例如第四集中他聲稱他不只拯救了狗狗，他還「拯救了這段婚姻」，因為女主人無法有效的領導狗狗，因此她必須更堅強，必須改變他們之間的相處模式。

Misogyny, it seems, cures dog behavior problems. Real exploration and explanation regarding the antecedents and consequences around behaviors are ignored in favor of client blaming.
這段貶抑女性的解釋，看起來似乎能改善犬隻的行為問題，然而關於行為問題真正的前因後果卻被指責客戶所取代，並沒有真正的被探討與解釋。

The clients on the show represent thousands of clients throughout the US and beyond with whom we work every day, helping them to help their dogs. Far from being dogs “other people won’t work with,” the dogs on your show are exactly the clients and dogs that IAABC Certified Dog Behavior Consultants, as well as all members of the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists, Certified Applied Animal Behaviorists, and other certified behavior specialists see and successfully work with every day.
節目中所出現的客戶正代表了我們日常工作中所會幫助的人們與他們的狗，呈現的就是我們在美國跟其他國家的上千位客戶。節目中所出現的這些有著行為問題的狗絕對不是「其他訓練師都不想要處理的狗狗」，事實上這些客戶與狗正是IAABC認證的狗行為諮詢師、美國獸醫行為學家、認證的應用動物行為學家或是其他受認證的行為學專家，每天工作的日常。

We do so using the best practices of our field (see https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/), adopted by the leading behavior and training organizations, without psychologically or physically harming the animals we work with.
我們在這個領域也使用最嚴謹的訓練師專業道德守則（英文版參見https://m.iaabc.org/about/ethics/，中文版參見https://reurl.cc/72eVkl），這個守則受領先的行為及訓練機構所採用，使訓練師與行為諮詢師在工作時，不對我們經手的動物造成生理或心理上的傷害。

The IAABC urges Nat Geo WILD to stop promoting this public miseducation. The tactics employed in the name of entertainment are unnecessarily harsh and potentially dangerous to the public, and they teach yet another generation of Nat Geo watchers absolutely incorrect and harmful practices.
IAABC呼籲國家地理頻道（Nat Geo WILD）停止傳播此系列誤導公眾的資訊。以娛樂包裝節目的策略對於觀眾是不必要的粗糙而且有潛在風險的，甚至是向頻道的年輕一代觀眾灌輸完全不正確且有害的做法。

It remains a mystery why your network is so intent on harming dogs. After years of Cesar Milan, to now bring in a man equally unskilled, who equates terrified, angry or entrapped dogs to his own addiction history is remarkable. Are we really satisfied conflating ego with compassion, self-focus with an understanding of animal behavior? Is this the “science” your mission stands for?
我們仍然不知為何貴頻道這麼多年來如此堅持持續傷害狗的這些作為。在西薩 (Cesar Milan) 的節目播映多年之後，現在又引進一個同樣缺乏正確訓練技巧，以自身藥物成癮困擾歷史去錯誤的同理恐懼或憤怒的狗的人。我們能接受一個膨脹自我，而非真正擁有同情心、適當自我聚焦、了解動物行為的「專業人士」嗎？這就是貴節目所宣稱的「科學」立場嗎？

The damage Nat Geo is doing to dogs by choosing this type of programming is astounding. We can only assume that the producers are unaware of this, as it’s hard to imagine such harm and cruelty would be deliberate.
國家地理頻道選擇製作這類節目對於狗狗的傷害甚鉅，我們只能假定節目製作人並沒有意識到這點，因為我們難以想像會有人故意去做這樣有害且殘忍的事情。

Would you show a reality program on heart surgery with a photogenic “self-taught” practitioner, simply stating the star was not a doctor before showing him mutilating a real patient?
想問貴節目是否會採用一個上鏡的“自學”外科醫生錄製心臟手術的實境節目，告知觀眾他並非真正的醫生，然後播放他對病患動刀的畫面？

I leave you with the clearest image of suffering and abuse from your trailer: the Aussie, stressed to the breaking point, thick ropes of drool streaming from its mouth, being choked by a slip lead to compensate for the host’s inability to even effectively muzzle a dog. This dog is at the point of collapse. This dog is being tortured, and that is not hysteria. That is an assessment by any educated measure.
作為結尾，我希望指出貴節目預告片中明確顯示出狗狗受苦或受虐的畫面：那隻澳洲牧羊犬已經瀕臨壓力的極限，您可以看到口水掛在其嘴邊 (大量口水為壓力徵兆)，口罩因為沒有確實的配戴而滑脫，導致牠被勒到快要窒息，已在崩潰邊緣。具備專業與適當教育的人員指出，這隻狗因在節目上被虐待而情緒崩潰，並非其本身歇斯底里。

Please stop this cruel and dangerous programming. To do otherwise is to support that self-taught heart surgery and all the consequences it would bring; that this show is currently bringing to families struggling with their dogs.
Professionals refer to Cesar Milan’s influence on dog training as “job security” because so many dogs ruined or made far worse by his teachings are brought to us by well-intentioned, often weeping owners desperate for real help. Often it is too late.
請停止這系列殘酷且危險的節目。否則貴節目就等同於支持前面舉例的自學的心臟外科「醫師」進行手術一樣，這些危險的後果正由觀眾與他們的狗承擔。專業訓犬人士將西薩米蘭對訓犬的影響戲稱為「工作保障」，因為太多飼主使用了他教授的技巧後，狗狗的狀況變得更糟，而哭著迫切尋找真正的協助，此時通常都為時已晚。

We do not want more work due to this same phenomenon.
我們不想要因為這個節目帶來類似影響而接到更多工作。

We’d be happy to provide you with any education and resources you need to inform your producers about what would qualify as responsible, effective, safe and thoughtful work with the same “red zone” dogs you sell so well.
但我們很樂意提供貴頻道任何需要的教育與資源，讓您們的節目製作人對訓犬工作應有的品質有所理解，例如負責、有效、安全，並且理解到對於在節目中出現的這些「危險」犬隻，事實上有更合理的訓練方法。

Thank you for your consideration.
謝謝您的閱讀與理解。

Marjie Alonso
Executive Director, IAABC
For the Board of Directors

Marjie Alonso
IAABC執行長
代表董事會發言

//佛朗士在《諸神渴了》中寫道：「當政府違反人民權利時，反抗乃為人民責任中最神聖、最不可缺少的。」//

【百戰沙場碎鐵衣 獨領殘兵千騎歸】— 大專學界就港共政權清算抗爭者告全港市民書

香港市民：

二零一六年農曆新年，政府一改慣例，將小販趕盡殺絕。港人因而聲援旺角新年小販，支持本土文化。豈料警方突然暴力清場，更向天鳴槍，終引發大規模警民衝突。港共政權以暴動罪起訴抗爭者，清算異己。過去兩年已陸續有抗爭者因暴動罪被判刑，抗爭者為爭取公義卻失去了數以年計的光陰，大專學界對抗爭者的遭遇表示痛心，並譴責港共政府無恥之舉。

昨天盧建民和梁天琦竟被分別判囚七年和六年，日前亦有抗爭者被判以數年計的監禁。大專學界認為近日判刑過為苛刻。香港法例早已變得因陋守舊。《公安條例》對暴動罪中「破壞社會安寧」並無清晰界定，而「非法集會」和「暴動」的定義亦無明確分野，兩者卻存在差天共地的量刑標準，讓法例淪為政權打壓抗爭者的工具。聯合國亦曾兩度批評現時《公安條例》並未能為市民集會自由提供足夠保障，唯香港仍然固步自封，迴避檢討《公安條例》。學界促請檢討現行法例，確保港人權利在維持社會秩序中亦有所保障。學界亦認為裁決和量刑考慮中，社會現況和抗爭者的動機意圖都是不可忽視的公共政策因素。若被告行動的意圖或動機是真誠追求社會利益而非個人利益，法律亦應予以考慮。

今天抗爭者身陷囹圄，我們更要去食存信，把抗爭者為我城鞠躬盡瘁的精神銘諸心腑。在當今專制政權之下，大專學界誓必與港人同行，以追求自由為志，銘記同儕犧牲，思考我城前路。佛朗士在《諸神渴了》中寫道：「當政府違反人民權利時，反抗乃為人民責任中最神聖、最不可缺少的。」赤化風暴從未止息，我城前路憂堪：一地兩檢、國歌法本地立法和廿三條立法等危機接踵而來。此刻我們決不可如槁木死灰，更不可視若無睹。作為香港人，我們不能把拯救我城的責任假手於人，也不應對我城未來失去希望。希望愈渺茫，我們愈要捉緊；唯有堅持，我們才有機會把握我城命運。

學界相信，跛鱉千里，正義終會戰勝歸來：
「百戰沙場碎鐵衣，城南已合數重圍，突營射殺呼延將，獨領殘兵千騎歸」
— 李白《從軍行》

香港城市大學學生會
恒生管理學院學生會
香港樹仁大學學生會臨時行政小組
香港珠海學院學生會
香港教育大學學生會
香港理工大學學生會
香港大學學生會
香港中文大學學生會

二零一八年六月十二日

A Lost Battle Is A Battle One Thinks One Has Lost - A Letter to All Citizens of Hong Kong from Students’ Unions of Higher Institutions

Dear Hong Kong Citizens,

During the Lunar New Year of 2016, the government changed its usual practice and forbidden the hawkers to make their own living ruthlessly. Thus, in order to defend the local culture, Hong Kong people stood up and supported the hawkers in Mong Kok. Yet, the police suddenly arrived at the scene and evicted the protesters in violence. Worst still, they even fired bullets amidst the crowd. The clampdown eventually led to a large-scale conflict between police and protesters. In the past two years, there have been protesters prosecuted by the government and sent to prison for crimes such as riots. The Students’ Unions of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong would like to express our utter sadness towards the hardship suffered by the convicted and accused protesters in the Mong Kok Cases. Moreover, we hereby condemn the shameful act of the regime.

Apart from the seven-year and six-year imprisonments suffered by Lo Kin-man and Edward Leung, several protesters have also been sent to jail for years. The Students’ Union of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong would like to express our concern and discontent towards the oppressive and unreasonable sentences recently. In fact, the laws in Hong Kong have already become obsolete. In "Public Security Ordinance”, the meaning of "leading to a breach of the peace" is not clearly defined. Moreover, there is no clear distinction between the definitions of “Unlawful assembly" and "Riot”, but the criterions for imposing penalty are completely different for these two crimes. Such loopholes allow the regime to use laws as means to suppress the protesters. The United Nations has twice criticised that the current “Public Security Ordinance” does not provide citizens with sufficient protection to enjoy their freedom of assembly. However, the Hong Kong government evades reviewing the current "Public Security Ordinance”. We then urge for a review of the current laws to ensure that the rights of Hong Kong people are safeguarded while maintaining social order. We also believe that the current situation in the society, as well as the intention of the protesters, are public policy factors that cannot be ignored. Such intention should also be considered If the defendant strives to pursue social interests instead of self interests.

Today, protesters were imprisoned as they were prosecuted by the regime. We shall keep our faith despite the adversities, engraving the protesters’ spirit of sacrificing themselves for our city on our mind. Under the dictatorial regime, the Students’ Union of Higher Education Institutions in Hong Kong pledge to walk along with all citizens throughout the journey of pursuing freedom. We shall bear in mind the sacrifices of the predecessors and ponder over the future of our city. In “The Gods Are Athirst”, Anatole France wrote: “When the Government violates the Rights of the people, insurrection is for the people the most sacred and the most indispensable of duties.” Hong Kong has never escaped from the increasing control of the communist party, and its future is disconcerting as human rights and rule of law are being devastated. When various crises such as the co-location arrangement together with legislations of national anthem law and Article 23 come around incessantly, we shall never let our voice die down nor allow the regime to trample on us. It is only the Hong Kong people who bear the responsibility of saving our city. We shall never lose hope of the future of Hong Kong, as only through perseverance and assertiveness can we take control of the destiny of our home.

Jean-Paul Sartre once said, “a lost battle is a battle one thinks one has lost.” Shall we fight and struggle with persistence, Justice will return gloriously.

City University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
Hang Seng Management College Students’ Union
Interim Executive Committee of The Student Union of Hong Kong Shue Yan University
Student Union of Chu Hai College of Higher Education
The Education University of Hong Kong Students’ Union
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Students' Union
The Hong Kong University Students’ Union
The Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong

12th June 2018

小額贊助安撫蒟嫂 https://p.ecpay.com.tw/E2494

待了半輩子的辦公室，叫了半輩子的GM、RD、QAQC
到底是蝦咪挖糕？
本單元讓你知道這些常見的辦公室簡稱
真正的意思是什麼

本單元出現單字

OL/ office lady
Business girl
簡稱/ Abbreviation
R&D /RD /研發/ Research and development
GM / General Manager / 總經理
Assistant manager / 特助 / AGM / AM
Materials Manager 資材部經理 簡稱 MM
Regional Manager / 區經理 / RGM
Purchasing Manager / 採購部經理 / PM
Sales Manager / 業務部經理 / SM
Vice President/ 副總/ 副總統/ VP
公關/ Public Relations / PR
品質/ Quality
QA/ Quality Assurance / 品質保證
QC / Quality Control / 品質管控
人事部/ Human Resource / HR
人力/ Manpower
CEO / Chief executive officer / 執行長
COO / Chief operating officer / 營運長
CFO / Chief financial officer / 財務長
CMO / Chief marketing officer 行銷長
HQ / 總部/ Headquarters
分公司/ Branch office
母公司/ Parent company
子公司/ Subsidiary
FNG 新進人員/ Fucking New Guy
新手/ Rookie

蒟蒻學英文系列影片~

學英文到底有什麼用https://youtu.be/I83UIuX0wDs
辦公室職稱英文https://youtu.be/ELUIWZbygQ4
臉部英文大解析https://youtu.be/BCEwQgNtJLE
電影明星的英文念法https://youtu.be/pi06knRMkuI
跟數字有關的英文https://youtu.be/1K6LJdiIGjc
美國有幾個時區https://youtu.be/hZsZvlSRbCs
這些女鞋的英文怎麼說https://youtu.be/c5PI5lOmERM
跟天災有關的英文https://youtu.be/tz9hQADAkXo
跟身體有關的英文https://youtu.be/oX-rlkmpvCk
婚禮誓詞的英文https://youtu.be/VdHqMm7jnik
跟狗狗有關的英文https://youtu.be/O6_aDwO4Zho
跟廚房有關的英文https://youtu.be/QVtprVv1NjU
跟電玩有關的英文https://youtu.be/h3oFg8KpLVg
跟雞雞有關的英文https://youtu.be/Q6iOZQChkQw
跟妹妹有關的英文https://youtu.be/f_eLuPU2BhU
跟死亡有關的英文https://youtu.be/nFIt6B6SooQ
跟槍械有關的英文https://youtu.be/uPJP3PX_9n0
如何跟外國人聊天https://youtu.be/wBwVFrDXmb4
跟棒球有關的英文https://youtu.be/BD3wAN56fOM
軍事英文唸法https://youtu.be/3mmdlySlOXQ
亞洲國家的英文https://youtu.be/CZaAywriF-E
歐洲國家的英文https://youtu.be/BVoe1bcqBWM
美洲國家的英文https://youtu.be/-N0OP7AI0a0
非洲國家的英文https://youtu.be/hbxFB5JLPxk
大洋洲國家的英文https://youtu.be/hW1uHKOyjf0
如何利用部位來搜A片https://youtu.be/lbwRlnpKg3g
各種性愛體位的英文https://youtu.be/3fgVnczCIYY
有碼無碼的英文https://youtu.be/KWYqyRAYnNE
SM和多P的英文https://youtu.be/3GRktd9_-T4
有關地標的英文https://youtu.be/yvUCuRvk7qU
有關星座的英文https://youtu.be/S2d1ZkuS3cc
有關姿勢的英文https://youtu.be/Y2XZphod3FA
那些年我們聽過的電影歌曲https://youtu.be/PYZWlkZJB70
2018年梗圖繞口令https://youtu.be/CKos1k7YxAA
跟名人偉人有關的英文https://youtu.be/k7bPK3TzS64
跟發明有關的英文https://youtu.be/1w79AZjDNlc
大聯盟有幾支球隊https://youtu.be/Nuxh_3VgtQY

蒟蒻學歷史系列影片~

國務卿是什麼東西https://youtu.be/biyoj7f1ad8
美國的菸酒文化https://youtu.be/94hycBUDGn4
種族歧視背後的真相https://youtu.be/dpBo7NC1QDc
美國名字裡的秘密https://youtu.be/OqQzFJ_prvE
大家都誤解的美國歷史https://youtu.be/Z_Vc26-ao9g
感恩節的由來https://youtu.be/QkHq3_kfeag
可以合法嫖妓的地方https://youtu.be/13b4DcKmiTA
南北內戰的由來https://youtu.be/O4SwEfwSJy4
美國文化冷知識https://youtu.be/9F55jLPex_E

蒟蒻碎碎念系列影片~

何謂薪資透明化運動https://youtu.be/kFveqhy1qgw
為什麼左撇子比較聰明https://youtu.be/M0SVWeXH6Rw
黑人為什麼那麼笨https://youtu.be/UQ-Lsi4YoeU
台灣有多少外國人https://youtu.be/W6vOy993DM0
誰跟你說我種族歧視https://youtu.be/bYp2ibXQ97U
古代人為什麼那麼醜https://youtu.be/TK5151v5soY
川普沒有你想的那麼笨https://youtu.be/ThE1dveZd0I
黑人白人犯罪率大車拚https://youtu.be/ZYNhLOLoimA
5分鐘讓你了解摩門教 https://youtu.be/fOqeKKJP1nM

蒟蒻聊感情系列影片~

如何找適合你的伴侶https://youtu.be/kDfshMFsoQ4
如何搞一夜情https://youtu.be/lQBiOZ7X2eU
如何讓他丟掉前女友的遺物https://youtu.be/PL0P9ns-Gkg
為什麼男人該去結紮https://youtu.be/KsdNS2oTm10
為什麼愛情有兩年魔咒https://youtu.be/qX0rX2ir0A0
老外在台灣怎麼把妹https://youtu.be/4Os-FXhBgJc
為什麼美女反而容易晚婚https://youtu.be/-7OF_NzU1QY
老外的審美標準在哪裡https://youtu.be/bQlkC9Aa7eg
什麼樣的男人會家暴https://youtu.be/8pzqnQq_8IE
如何挑選適合的男朋友 https://youtu.be/Fd9bua8DWVg