communist regime中文的八卦，YOUTUBE和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

不曉得大家有在關注泰國反對軍政府的抗爭運動嗎？

上週日Taiwan Alliance for Thai Democracy - 台灣推動泰國民主聯盟 （TATD）在北車大廳舉辦一場宣講活動，現場約有一兩百人到場支持，部分媒體也做了報導。

活動訴求很清楚，就是反對泰國的獨裁軍政府。

昨天TATD拜會時代力量 New Power Party ，我們進行了一場有意義的對話，會中英文、泰文及中文夾雜。

新南向政策是政府的大方向，作為民間社會，我們可以從關注泰國的政情開始。

還記得前陣子台灣曾喊出 #奶茶聯盟 嗎？昨天在會中，TATD的朋友表示，台灣是民主陣線的重要成員，他們真心希望能有更多台灣朋友來關注他們的訴求。

On August 17, 2020 Taiwan Alliance for Thai Democracy (TATD) called at New Power Party in Taipei. Both sides had a fruitful and productive meeting.

The main purpose of the meeting was for TATD to share their thoughts on the demonstration currently widespread in Thailand as well as the gathering TATD organized at Taipei Main Station on August 16. New Power Party expressed its grave concerns about the protest and its support for Thai students in Taiwan in pursuit of human rights and democracy.

Taiwan has been considered a beacon of democracy in Asia for years. The Taiwanese society and its people have demonstrated staunch support for Hong Kongers during their fight against the ruthless Hong Kong government and the Chinese Communist regime.

What’s happening in Bangkok, Thailand is another brave fight against authoritarian rule. New Power Party urges the Taiwanese society to pay more attention to the protest in Thailand and voice necessary support for the vulnerable.

#MilkTeaAlliance

I have recently perused Nicholas Kristof’s NYT piece “China’s Man in Washington, Named Trump”(https://nyti.ms/3h2JXh8). One paragraph in particular caught my attention: “A joke in China suggests that Trump’s Chinese name is Chuan Jianguo, or “Build-the-Country Trump.” That’s because Build-the-Country is a common revolutionary name among Communist patriots, and it’s mockingly suggested that Trump’s misrule of the United States is actually bolstering Xi’s regime.”

Kristoff also avows that since Trump’s ascension to presidency, the American nation became highly polarized. This is reflected in the current administration’s policies on climate change, foreign relations with established U.S. allies, and COVID-19 prevention, all of which are rather ineffective. It also seems like Mr. Trump and his team diverged from the traditional priorities, including promoting free trade, human rights, and other quintessentially American values. As described thoroughly by John Bolton, all these factors contributed to the declining standing of the U.S. in global politics.

What is more, many people fall prey to CCP’s propaganda and its interpretations of Trump’s actions, which only enhances China’s reputation.

But that might not exactly be the case.

The CCP apparently failed to utilize the window of opportunity created by the ineptness of the Trump administration, as China could have grown to the position of a leader by filling in the void left by the U.S.

During the 2016 APEC Ministerial Meeting in Lima, Peru, Xi Jinping and his team actively supported the plans to establish the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) and a Free Trade Area of the Asia Pacific, or FTAAP. In contrast, the United States withdrew its signature from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in early 2017. Coupled with China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the establishment of the Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank (AIIB), this move bolstered China’s capacity to influence global investments and trade, high-tech mergers and acquisitions, and, overall, expand its geostrategic influence on the entire globe.

At the same time, various propaganda films about great power competition, military industry, and science and technology surged all at once, and gained remarkable following around the world.

All this provided a window of opportunity for the CCP to slowly change its course. Around the same time, the distrust for POTUS among U.S. allies’ reached its apex. According to polls conducted by the Pew Research Center, the distrust for the U.S. president in the U.K. reached 75%, 72% in Japan, 70% in Australia, and stunning 86% in France.

Had the C.C.P,. begun to open up at that time, or at least resumed the governance style of the Hu-Wen administration, it could have reaped the benefits of promoting liberalism where the U.S. failed to deliver. It was the time for Beijing to gradually enhance freedom of speech domestically, pursue sustainable infrastructural projects, gradually reform unfair barriers to trade, transform its S.O.E.s, strengthen protections for private ownership, and vitalize its start-ups and enterprises.

Moreover, were China to cease the genocide in East Turkestan and refrain from cracking down on Hong Kong's semi-autonomy, it would have greatly enhanced its global international image. Additionally, if paired with slow but steady reforms, Beijing’s respect for sovereignty of its peoples would have attracted a large amount of foreign investment, which in turn would have continued to buttress the country’s growth.

It is China prerogative to remain idle.
It might still be possible for Chinese “Dream” to come true.
Yet, a historic window of opportunity is now closed.

Xi assumed the tools of proscribing and stalling, which are completely antithetical to the aforementioned window of opportunity.

Today, China is more authoritarian, less flexible, and fully deprived of horizontal accountability. Its reliance on wolf warrior diplomacy backfired: for example, the Swedish parliament sought to expel the Chinese ambassador to Stockholm. Also, Prague, the capital of Czechia, terminated its sister-city agreement with Shanghai and instead signed a new one with Taipei. Last but not least, we ought not to forget about the recent fiasco in the relations with the United States who ordered the shutdown of China’s consulate in Houston. All of this took its toll on China’s reputation.

Its international standing and inability to replace the U.S. as the major global power are not the only issues China is currently facing.
As it experiences multiple domestic and international shocks, China struggles to combat the COVID-19 pandemic and tame the disastrous floods of Yangtze River. The swarm of locusts of biblical proportions is also crippling Beijing’s institutional capacity and may soon lead to food shortages. In fact, the precarity of food supply further diminishes the level of trust for Chinese authorities.

In 2019, the Pew Research Center conducted a public opinion survey to examine the international views of China. In the U.S., Argentina, the U.K., Canada, Germany, and Ukraine, only about 30% of respondents claim a favorable view of China.

As the COVID-19 pandemic rages in the U.S., as many as 73% of U.S. respondents view China unfavorably.

Recently, the C.C.P. is losing its focus by continuously shifting targets. In fact, I believe there is no need for the C.C.P.to rely on nationalistic appeals, since in this new century values, business relations, and fair competition are all far more important than greater than delusive blood ties.
China lies only 130 kilometers away from us. Of course, we welcome dialogue and seek to avoid misjudgments. But we also distinguish between the C.C.P. and China. While we do welcome dialogue, but we will not be coerced to talk under unjust preconditions or in fear.

The only fair prerequisites are those of reciprocity, mutual respect as well as fairness and openness with respect for the rule of law.
Source: Pew Research Center

最近看到紐約時報中文版的一篇文章
<美國的川普，中國的「川建國」>，其中一小段是這樣的

「在中國，人們戲稱川普的中文名字是川建國。那是因為建國是共產黨愛國者中一個普遍的革命人名。它在諷刺地暗示川普對美國的治理不當實際上是在鞏固習近平的政權。」

裡面也提到，川普在任的幾年，國家更分裂，對於氣候變遷，傳統美國盟友，乃至於疫情處理等都相當拙劣，對於美國傳統的自由貿易、人權等價值也基本上都沒有太大興趣。這些方針，導致美國在世界的評價降低，波頓的新書也多有描述。

除此之外，許多不幸相信中共宣傳，又或者是中共圈養的小粉紅，特別故意愛宣傳川普增強中國的威望。

但這不是真的。

中共完全沒有掌握美國做得不夠好的地方，去增強其在世界的領導力。

在2016年時，秘魯的亞太峰會舉行期間，習近平政權爭取（RCEP）及亞太自由貿易區（FTAAP）談判；對比2017年初，美國剛宣布退出ＴＰＰ，加上中國到「一帶一路」和亞洲基礎設施投資銀行，中國當時在世界全面發揮投資貿易、高科技併購還有其地緣戰略的影響力。

也是那個時候，各種的大國崛起、大國軍工、大國科技的宣傳影片此起彼落，似乎正準備要在世界舞台發光發熱。

這曾經是中共慢慢轉向的一個機會之窗。彼時（2017)美國盟友對美國總統的不信任度達到歷史新高，根據皮尤研究中心的資訊，英國對於美國總統的不信任度達到75%、日本72% 澳洲70% 法國更高達86%

如果那時中共開始有限度的改革，對內放寬言論自由，或者至少維持在胡溫當時的水中，對外追求有責任的基礎建設，逐步緩慢減低不公平的貿易壁壘，對於國有企業改革，增強私營企業、新創企業的活力。

停止對新疆迫害，不干預香港自治，不僅國際形象會大幅改善，哪怕是緩慢但是穩健的改革，也會讓大量吸引外資，讓中國的活力持續前進。

哪怕是什麼都不做也好

那或許有這麽一點可能性，中國「夢」是可以前行的

但是歷史機緣的大門已經關上。

習、禁、停、放棄了這個機會之窗，徹底的走向相反的方向。

更專制、更沒有彈性，更沒有任何制衡的力量。各種戰狼外交，讓瑞典議員提案驅逐中國大使，捷克布拉格市長與台北簽訂姊妹是，就解散上海與該市關係、被美國關閉領事館、各種讓中國形象低下的事情，中共都沒有少做。

中共不但完全沒有辦法取代美國，在多重國內外的衝擊之下，又是瘟疫，又是超大水患，緊接著蝗害，還有進來的糧食不足問題，正在面臨巨大的瓶頸。

而糧食的命脈，卻恰恰又在對他最不信任，對中共價值最反對的國家聯盟

根據皮尤研究中心:Pew Research Center2019調查各國對中國的喜好度，美國、阿根廷、英國、加拿大、德國、烏克蘭等，對於中國的喜好度都在30%上下

而2020疫情後美國對於中國的不信任度，更高達73%。

最近中共在演習，又要玩轉移目標的手段，對於中共，其實不必再有民族主義的同情，因為新的世紀，價值、商業模式、公平競爭的制度大於血緣幻想。

中國離我們只有130公里的距離，我們當然歡迎對話，避免誤判。但我們同時也區分中共與中國，歡迎對話，但不在前提、條件、恐懼之下對話。

如果真的要有前提，那就是對等、尊重，還有公平公開法治的方式會晤。

資料來源：皮尤研究中心:Pew Research Center
（美國著名的民調機構和智庫機構，https://www.pewresearch.org/）

1. 好想瘋狂比梁美芬
2. 我倍感安慰

【人必自侮然後人侮之──中大學生會及中大書院學生會就梁美芬女士之謬論之聯合聲明｜“One Loses One’s Respect From Others Because One Has No Respect For Oneself” - Statement from the CUHK Joint Student Unions on Ms. Leung Mei-fun Priscilla’s Farcical Comments】

(Please scroll down for English version)

在六月二十六日的立法會會議中，作為香港中文大學校友的梁美芬女士稱「中文大學是中國人的大學」，並謂「任何違反國家利益的事都違背中大精神」。我等對梁美芬女士扭曲中大歷史、貶低中大精神之言論表示強烈遺憾。

我校之所以命名為「香港中文大學」，是因為我校以傳揚中華文化為己任，並希望提高中文於殖民地時期的地位。我校創校校長李卓敏博士曾於1978年中大第十九屆頒授學位典禮上解釋道，中文大學是指「傳揚中國文化的大學」，而當中的「中國」絕非指共產黨建立的「中華人民共和國」。1949年後，大批難民為了逃避共產政權之魔掌由北方湧入香港，包括中大的創校先賢。他們之所以創建中大，正為了抵抗中共的文化破壞，希望為中華文化留下一點命脈，而新亞書院創辦人之一錢穆先生就曾把中大比喻為「中華文化花果飄零到香港的最後種子」。因此，中大絕非梁所指的「中國人的大學」，更非維護中華人民共和國利益之大學。恰恰相反，中大是為了抗共而生。

梁美芬女士作為中大校友，甚至曾任聯合書院學生會會長及中大學生會幹事，竟對創校歷史背景一無所知，實在枉為中大人。梁擅自把中文大學與「中國人的大學」畫上等號，甚至把中大精神貶至維護國家利益，於議事堂上大言不慚，實在不知所謂，亦是對我校眾創校先賢之侮辱。「人必自侮然後人侮之。」作為中大人，我等強烈譴責梁美芬女士愚昧無知之言論；作為香港人，我等以有質素如此低劣的代議士為恥。

中大多年來致力提升學子之人文關懷及公民意識，培育出一代又一代關心香港、積極參與社會運動的中大人。每一場的民主運動，包括當下的「反送中」運動，中大人從不缺席，正正表現出中大人守護香港之決心。偏偏梁在中共政權下搖尾乞憐，處處出賣港人，其所作所為令人不齒，我等恥與為伍。

我校創校先賢正是懷着對自由的渴求、追求真理的精神，千辛萬苦創建了中大，作為中大學生，我等定必竭力捍衛我城之自由，以一己努力改革社會，不辜負前人的期許。

二零一九年六月二十九日

香港中文大學學生會
香港中文大學逸夫書院學生會
香港中文大學善衡書院學生會
香港中文大學崇基學院學生會
香港中文大學新亞書院學生會
香港中文大學聯合書院學生會幹事會
香港中文大學和聲書院學生會幹事會

In a Legislative Council meeting on 26 June, CUHK alumna Ms. Leung Mei-fun Priscilla claimed that the Chinese University of Hong Kong is a “university for Chinese people”, and “anything against national interests is also against the spirit of CUHK”. We strongly condemn Ms. Leung’s distortion of CUHK’s history as well as her disrespect for the CUHK spirit.

Our school was named “the Chinese University of Hong Kong” because it took the promotion of Chinese culture as its responsibility, with the objective of elevating the status of Chinese as a language in the colonial times. Founding Vice-Chancellor Dr. Li Choh-Ming explained this in 1978, at the 19th CUHK Congregation for the Conferment of Degrees, that the Chinese University of Hong Kong is a university that promotes Chinese culture, and ‘Chinese’ in this context has not in the slightest to do with People’s Republic of China established by Chinese communists. After 1949, a large number of refugees flooded to Hong Kong in order to escape the northern communist regime, including founders of CUHK. They specifically established CUHK so as to withstand Chinese Communist cultural invasion, hoping to preserve the lifeline of the Chinese culture. New Asia College founder Dr. Chi’en Mu described CUHK as “the final seed of the Chinese culture drifted to the soil of Hong Kong”. Therefore, CUHK is nothing close to what Ms. Leung claimed to be as an institution protecting the national interests of the People’s Republic of China. In contrast, CUHK was established to fight against Chinese communism.

As an alumna of CUHK, as well as former United College Student’s Union President and former CUSU committee member, it is absolutely disgraceful how ignorant Ms. Leung is. Her false and loathsome claims were terrible insults to our founders. One loses one’s respect from others because one has no respect for oneself. As CUHKers, we strongly condemn Ms. Leung for her idiotic comments, and are shameful to have her as a Legislative Councillor.

CUHK strived to promote the spirit of humanism and social consciousness over the years, nurturing generations of CUHKers who love Hong Kong and participate in social movements, including the “No Extradition to China Movement” taking place at the moment. CUHKers have never been absent in these events, which demonstrates the courage and willingness of CUHKers to protect and contribute to their home. Despite so, it is unfortunate that the likes of Ms. Leung exist among us, wagging her tail begging for mercy from a tyrannical regime.

The founders of CUHK established our alma mater seeking for freedom and longing for truth, CUHK students should do whatever it takes to protect our freedom, so as to meet our predecessor’s expectations.

29 June 2019

The Student Union of the Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Student Union of Shaw College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
Student Union, Chung Chi College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Student Union of New Asia College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Executive Committee, Student Union of United College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The Executive Committee, Student Union of Lee Woo Sing College, The Chinese University of Hong Kong