due to文法的八卦，PTT、DCARD和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

黃浩銘：

//法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！//

希望在於人民　改變始於抗爭
—雨傘運動公眾妨擾案陳情書

陳法官仲衡閣下：

　　自2011年你審理只有23歲的我，追問時任特首曾蔭權知否米貴涉擾亂公眾秩序的案件距今已有8年。在命運的安排下，我再次站在你面前，只是當你讀到這封陳情書的時候，我已經不是當年被你宣判無罪釋放的年青人，而是一個準備迎接第三次入獄的積犯。然而，今天我不是尋求你的憐憫，而是希望道明我參與雨傘運動，公民抗命的緣由，讓法官閣下可以從我的動機及行為來給予合理判刑。

　　8年以來，我們的崗位稍有轉變，但香港的變化更大，充滿爭議的各個大白象基建均已落成，更多旅客走訪社區，似是一片繁華景象，但同時，更多窮人住在劏房，更多群眾走上街頭，亦有更多我們愛惜的年青人進入監牢。從前我們認為香港不會發生的事，都一一在這8年間發生了。當我8年前站在你面前那一刻，我們都不會想像得到香港人可被挾持返大陸，亦想像不到原來有一天大陸的執法人員可在香港某地方正當執法，更想像不到中共政府除了透過人大釋法外，還可藉著「一言九鼎」的人大決定，甚至中央公函來決定香港人的前途命運和收緊憲制權利。

爭取民主的本意

　　民主只是口號嗎？當年，我痛罵無視100萬窮人及30萬貧窮長者利益，卻慶祝不知辛亥革命本意的前行政長官曾蔭權，並要求設立全民退休保障，廢除強積金，因此首次被捕被控。但時至今日，香港仍然有過百萬貧窮人口，超過30萬貧窮長者，貧富懸殊及房屋短缺的問題愈加嚴重。2014年，我見過一位75歲的伯伯跪在立法會公聽會向時任勞工及福利局局長張建宗下跪，懇求政府不要拆遷古洞石仔嶺安老院。2019年，我又見到一位67歲執紙皮維生的婆婆在立法會公聽會哭訴難以找工作，現任勞工及福利局局長羅致光竟然叫她找勞工處。為何官員如此冷酷無情？為何我們的意見均未能影響政府施政？歸根結柢，就是因為香港人沒有真正的選擇，喪失本來應有制訂政策及監督的權力！

　　所謂民主，就是人民當家作主。任何施政，應當由人民倡議監督，公義分配，改善公共服務，使得貧者脫貧，富者節約。今日香港，顧全大陸，官商勾結，貧富懸殊，耗資千億的大白象跨境基建接踵而來，但當遇見護士猝死，教師自殺，老人下跪，政府政策就只有小修小補，小恩小惠，試問如何服眾？由1966年蘇守忠、盧麒公民抗命反對天星小輪加價，乃至1967年暴動及1989年中國愛國民主運動，甚至2003年反廿三條大遊行，無不是因政權專政，政策傾斜，分配不公，引致大規模民眾反抗。2014年雨傘運動的起點，亦是如此。

　　多年來，港人爭取民主，為求有公義分配，有尊嚴生活，有自主空間，但我們得到的是甚麼？1984年，中英兩國簽署《聯合聲明》前夕，前中共總書記趙紫陽曾回覆香港大學學生會要求「民主治港，普選特首」的訴求，清楚承諾「你們所說的『民主治港』是理所當然的」。當時，不少港人信以為真，誤以為回歸之後可得民主，但自1989年六四血腥鎮壓及2003年50萬人反對《廿三條》立法大遊行後，中共圖窮匕現，在2004年透過人大釋法收緊政制改革程序，並粗暴地決定2007及2008不會普選行政長官及立法會。自此，完全不民主的中國立法機關－全國人民代表大會常務委員會掌控香港人的命運福祉，人大釋法及人大決定可以隨時隨地配合極權政府的主張，命令香港法庭跟從，打壓香港的民主和法治。

　　2014年8月31日，是歷史的轉捩點。儘管多少溫和學者苦苦規勸，中共仍以6月的＜一國兩制白皮書＞為基礎，展示全面管治權的氣派，包括法官閣下在內，都要屈從愛國之說。在《8‧31人大決定》之後，中共完全暴露其假民主假普選的面目，其時，我們認為對抗方法就只有公民抗命。

公民抗命的起點

　　違法就是罪惡嗎？我們違法，稱之為「公民抗命」，就是公民憑良心為公眾利益，以非暴力形式不服從法律命令，以求改變不義制度或法律。終審法院非常任法官賀輔明（Leonard Hoffmann）勳爵曾在英國著名案例 R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 案提出：「發自良知的公民抗命，有着悠久及光榮的傳統。那些因着信念認為法律及政府行為是不義而違法的人，歷史很多時候都證明他們是正確的……能包容這種抗爭或示威，是文明社會的印記。」

　　終審法院在最近的公民廣場案（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35）亦道明「公民抗命」的概念可獲肯定（該案判詞第70至72段）。因此，亦印證我等9人及其他公民抗命者並非可以一般「違法犯事」來解釋及施刑。港人以一般遊行示威爭取民主30年，無論從殖民年代乃至特區年代，皆無顯著改進，今日以更進步主張，公民抗命爭取民主，正如印度、南非、波蘭等對抗強權，實在無可厚非。誠然，堵塞主要幹道，影響民眾上班下課，實非我所願，但回想過來，中共及特區政府多年來豈不更堵塞香港民主之路，妨擾公眾獲得真正的發聲機會？

　　如果我是公民抗命，又何以不認罪承擔刑責？2014年12月，警方以成文法「出席未經批准集結」及「煽動參與未經批准集結」在村口將我逮捕。2017年3月，警方改以普通法「煽惑他人作出公眾妨擾」及「煽惑他人煽惑公眾妨擾」提控。正如戴耀廷先生在其結案陳詞引述英國劍橋大學法學教授 John R. Spencer 提及以普通法提訴的問題：「近年差不多所有以『公眾妨擾罪』來起訴的案件，都出現以下兩種情況的其中一個：一、當被告人的行為是觸犯了成文法律，通常懲罰是輕微的，檢控官想要以一支更大或額外的棒子去打他；二、當被告人的行為看來是明顯完全不涉及刑事責任的，檢控官找不到其他罪名可控訴他」，無獨有偶，前終審法院常任法官鄧楨在其2018年退休致詞提及：「普通法同樣可被用作欺壓的工具。它是一種變化多端的權力，除非妥善地運用人權法加以適當控制，否則可被不當使用。」如今看來，所言非虛。

　　今我遭控二罪，必定據理力爭，冀借助法官閣下明智判決推翻檢控不義，但法庭定讞，我自當承擔刑責，絕無怨言，以成全公民抗命之道。

試問誰還未覺醒

　　我是刻意求刑標榜自己，讓年青人跟從走進監獄大門嗎？我反覆推敲這個問題。然而，我的答案是，正正是希望後輩不用像我此般走進牢獄，我更要無懼怕地爭取人們所當得的。縱使今日面對強權，惡法將至，烏雲密佈，我依然一如既往，毋忘初衷地認為真普選才是港人獲得真正自由之路。任何一個聲稱為下一代福祉者，理應為後輩爭取自由平等的選擇權利，讓他們能自立成長，辨明是非，而非家長式管控思想，讓下一代淪為生財工具，朝廷鷹犬。

　　主耶穌基督說：「我確確實實地告訴你們：一粒麥子如果不落在地裡死去，它仍然是一粒；如果死了，就結出很多子粒來。（《約翰福音》第12章24節）」沒有犧牲，沒有收穫。故然，我不希望年青人跟我一樣要踏上公民抗命之路，承受牢獄之苦，但我請教所有智慧之士，既然舉牌示威遊行均已無顯其效，公民抗命和平抗爭為何不是能令政權受壓求變之策？若非偌大群眾運動，梁振英豈不仍安坐其位？

　　刑罰於我而言，無情可求，唯一我心中所想，就是希望法庭能顧念75歲的朱耀明牧師年事已高，望以非監禁方式處之，讓港人瞥見法庭對良心公民抗命者寬容一面。美國法哲學家羅納德‧德沃金（Ronald Dworkin）在1968年論及公民抗命時（On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience），不但認為法庭應給予公民抗命者寬鬆刑罰，甚至應不予起訴。事實上，終審法院非常任法官賀輔明在2014年12月4日，即雨傘運動尾聲（已發生大規模堵路多日），佔中三子自首之後一日，接受《蘋果日報》及《南華早報》訪問時提到「抗爭者及掌權者均未有逾越公民抗命的『遊戲規則』，抗爭活動並沒有損害香港法治」，更進一步提到「一旦他們被判有罪，應該從輕發落，認為這是傳統，因為自首的公民不是邪惡的人」，由此，我期盼法庭將有人道的判刑。

　　法官閣下，我能夠參與雨傘運動，爭取民主，實是毫無悔意，畢生榮幸。我已花了最青春的10年在社會運動上，假若我有80歲，我仍有50年可以與港人同行，繼續奮鬥。要是法官不信，且即管以刑罰來考驗我的意志，試煉我的決心，希望我的戰友們在我囚禁的時候，可以激發愛心，勉勵行善，更加有勇氣和力量作個真誠的人對抗謊言治國的中共政權。

　　「希望在於人民，改變始於抗爭」，唯有透過群眾力量，直接行動，才能改變社會。8年前如是，今日亦如是。但願港人堅定不移，爭取民主，打倒特權，彰顯公義。自由萬歲！民主社會主義萬歲！

　　願公義和慈愛的　主耶穌基督與我同在，與法官先生同在，與香港人同在！

社會民主連線副主席、雨傘運動案第八被告
黃浩銘
二零一九年四月九日

Hope lies in the people
Changes come from resistance
- Umbrella Movement Public Nuisance Case Statement

Your Honour Judge Johnny Chan,

It has been 8 years since I have met you in court. You were the judge to my case on disorder in public places. It was in 2011 and I was only 23 years old. I chased after the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang and asked if he knew the price of rice and whether he understood the struggles of the poor. Fate has brought us here again, I am before you once again, but I am no longer the young man who was acquitted. When you are reading this statement, I am a “recidivist”, ready to be sent to prison for the third time. However, I do not seek your mercy today, but wish to explain the reasons for my participation in the Umbrella Movement and civil disobedience, so that your honour can give a reasonable sentence through understanding my motives and actions.

Our positions have slightly altered in the past 8 years, but not as great as the changes that took place in Hong Kong. The controversial big white elephant infrastructures were completed. More tourists are visiting, making Hong Kong a bustling city. At the same time, however, more poor people are living in sub-divided flats, more people are forced to the street to protest, more young people are sent to jail. Things we wouldn’t have imagined 8 years are now happening in Hong Kong. When I was before you 8 years ago, we would not have imagined Hong Kong people could be kidnapped by the Chinese authority to Mainland China. We wouldn’t have imagined that one day, the Mainland law enforcement officers could perform their duties in Hong Kong. We wouldn’t have imagined, not only could the Community Chinese government interpret our law, but they could decide on our future and tightened the rule on constitutional rights through the National People’s Congress Decision.

The Original Intention

Is democracy just a slogan? 8 years ago, I criticised the then Chief Executive Mr. Donald Tsang for ignoring the interests of 1 million poor people and 300,000 elderly. I scolded him for celebrating the 1911 Revolution without understanding its preliminary belief. I called for the establishment of universal retirement protection and the abolition of MPF, and was arrested for the first time. Yet, there are still over a million poor people in Hong Kong today, with more than 300,000 of poor elderly. The disparity between the rich and the poor and housing problem have only become worsen.

In 2014, I witnessed a 75-year-old man kneeling before the Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Matthew Cheung Kin-Chung at a public hearing in the Legislative Council. The old man begged the government not to demolish the elderly home in Kwu Tung Dills Corner. In 2019, a 67-year-old woman, who scavenges for cardboards to make a living, cried during the Legislative Council public hearing. She cried because it was impossible for her to get a job. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare Mr. Law Chi-Kwong simply told her to ask for help in the Labour Department. Why are the government officials so callous? Why have our opinions failed to affect the government’s administration? The root of the problem is that Hong Kong people do not have real choices, we have been deprived of the power to supervise the government and to formulate policies.

What is democracy? Democracy means people are the masters. Any policies should be supervised by the people, the society’s resources should be justly distributed to improve the public services, so that the poor is no longer in poverty. However, in today’s Hong Kong, the focus is on the Mainland China, there is collusion between the government and the businesses, there is a great disparity between the rich and the poor, and multi-billion-dollar big white elephant cross-border infrastructure are built one after another. Nurses die from overexertion at work, teachers commit suicide and old man kneels to beg for what he deserves. Yet, the government policies were only minor repairs here and there, giving small treats and favours to the people. How can you win the support of the people? From the civil disobedience movement in 1966 by So Sau-chung and Lo Kei against the increase of Star Ferry fare, until the 1967 riots and 1989 China Patriotic Democratic Movement, even the 2003 march against the purported legistlation of Article 23, they were all due to the political dictatorship, imbalance policies as well as unfair distribution of public resources. It is for these reasons that led to large scale protests. It is for the same reason that the 2014 Umbrella Movement started.

For so many years, Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy. We demand a just allocation, a life with dignity and space of freedom. However, what do we get in return? On the eve of the signing of the Joint Declaration in 1984, the then premier of the Communist Chinese government Zhao Ziyang in his reply to the demand for democracy and universal suffrage by the University of Hong Kong Student Council clearly promised that ‘what you referred to, namely “rule Hong Kong by democracy” is a matter that goes without saying.’ At the time, a lot of Hong Kong people believed it. They thought they would have democracy after the handover. However, since the bloody suppression on 4th June 1989 and the 500,000 people demonstration against Article 23 in 2003, the plot of the Chinese communist revealed itself. They decided by force through the NPC interpretation in 2004 that there would be no universal suffrage of the Chief Executive and the Legislative Council in 2007 and 2008. Since then, the undemocratic authority of NPC kept a tight grip on the destiny of Hong Kong people. NPC’s interpretation and decisions can be deployed anytime when convenient to assist the propaganda of the authoritative government, forcing the hands of the Hong Kong court and suppressing Hong Kong democracy and the rule of law.

31st August 2014 was a turning point in history. No matter how the moderate scholars tried to persuade it from happening, the Community Chinese government has used the One Country Two System White Paper in June as the foundation and forced its way down onto the people. Even your honour was among them, succumbed to the so called patriotism. After the 8.31 Decision of the National People’s Congress, the plot of the Communist Chinese government has revealed itself, the Chinese government has been lying to the Hong Kong people, they never intended to give Hong Kong genuine universal suffrage. At that time, we believed that civil disobedience was inevitable and was the only way out.

The Starting Point of Civil Disobedience

Is breaking the law sinful? We broke the law with a cause, as “civil disobedience” is the refusal to comply with certain laws considered unjust, as a peaceful form of political protest in the interest of the public to change the unjust system or law. Non-Permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal Honourable Leonard Hoffman stated in the well-known R v Jones (Margaret) [2007] 1 AC 136 case that, “civil disobedience on conscientious grounds has a long and honourable history in this country. People who break the law to affirm their belief in the injustice of a law or government action are sometime vindicated by history. It is the mark of a civilised community that it can accommodate protests and demonstrations of this kind.”

The recent decision by the Court of Appeal concerning the Civic Square outside the government headquarter（Secretary for Justice v Wong Chi Fung (2018) 21 HKCFAR 35) also confirmed the idea of civil disobedience(paragraphs 70-72 of the judgment refer). This , therefore, confirmed that myself and the other 8 defendants as well as other civil disobedience protestors, should not be understood as “breaking the law” in its general circumstances, nor should our sentencing be weighted against the usual standard. Hong Kong people have been fighting for democracy through protest for 30 years already, whether it was during the times of colonial British rule or during the special administrative region, there has been no improvement. Today, we fought for democracy, just as the fights for freedom and democracy in India, South Africa and Poland, and civil disobedience is inevitable. It is true that we did not want to block the roads or affect Hong Kong citizens attending to work or school. But on reflection, didn’t the Communist Chinese and Special Administrative governments block our road to democracy and interfere with our rights to speak up?

If what I did was in the name of civil disobedience, why should I defend my case and not bear the criminal responsibility? In December 2014, the police made use of the statutory offences of “attending unauthorised assembly and inciting participation in unauthorised assembly” and arrested me at the village I live in. In March 2017, the police amended their charges to common law offences of “incitement to commit public nuisance and incitement to incite public nuisance”. As Mr. Benny Tai said in his closing submissions, quoting law professor of Cambridge University John R. Spencer on common law charges, “...almost all the prosecutions for public nuisance in recent years seem to have taken place in one of two situations: first, where the defendant’s behaviour amounted to a statutory offence, typically punishable with a small penalty, and the prosecutor wanted a bigger or extra stick to beat him with, and secondly, where the defendant’s behaviour was not obviously criminal at all and the prosecutor could think of nothing else to charge him with.” Coincidentally, the then Court of Appeal Honourable Mr Justice Robert Tang Kwok-ching stated in his retirement speech in 2018 that, “Common law can be used oppressively. It is protean power, unless adequately controlled by the proper application of human rights law, can be misused.” What he said has become true today.

Faced with 2 charges, I am going to stand by reasons and my principles, in order to assist the Court to overturn an unjust prosecution. However, should the court find me guilty, I shall bear the criminal responsibility. I have no qualm or regrets, in fulfilment of my chosen path of civil disobedience.

Who has not yet awoken?

I do reflect as to whether I am simply seeking a criminal sentence in order to make a point, or to encourage other young men to follow my footsteps into the gates of the prison. I have reflected upon this repeatedly. However, my answer is that, I am doing this precisely because I do not wish to see other young men following my suit into the prison. Because of this, I need to fight for what is ours fearlessly. Although today we are confronted by an oppressive authority, the looming legislation of unjust laws and a clouded future, I shall be as I always am: relentless maintaining my stance that a real election is the path to freedom for Hong Kong people. Anyone who claims to be acting in the interest of the next generation should fight for a free and equal choice for their youths. This is in order for them to learn to be independent, to be able to tell rights from wrongs. There should be no paternal thinking, simply teaching the next generation to be slaves of money and accessories to the oppressor.

My Lord Jesus Christ has said: ‘Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds. (Book of John 12:24.) Without sacrifice, there is no reward. I don’t wish to see any more young men having to join the path of civil disobedience as I did, and to pay the price as I did. However, I ask this of all men and women of wisdom: if peaceful demonstration in the old fashioned way has lost its effectiveness and was simply ignored, why is peaceful civil disobedience not a good way to bring about change whilst one is being oppressed? If not for this crowd movement, C Y Leung would still be sitting comfortably on the throne.

I have no mitigation to submit. I only wish that the Court would spare Reverend Chu, who is an elderly of 75 years of age. I pray that a non-custodial sentence may be passed for Reverend Chu. I hope that the Court will have leniency and mercy for Reverend Chu. I refer to the work of the American legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin in 1968, namely: ‘On Not Prosecuting Civil Disobedience’. He opined that, not only should the Court allow leniency to civil disobedience participants, but also should they not be prosecuted. In fact, Lord Hoffmann NPJ of the CFA stated the following in an interview with Apple Daily and South China Morning Post on 4th December 2014 (which was at the end of the Umbrella Movement, a day before the surrender of the 3 initiators of the Occupy Central Movement): ‘In any civilised society, there is room for people making political points by civil disobedience.’ ‘These are not wicked people.’ Civil disobedience had ‘an old tradition’ in the common law world. ‘When it comes to punishment, the court should take into account their personal convictions.’ In light of this, I hope the Court shall pass a humane sentence.

Your honour, I have no regret for participating in the Umbrella Movement and the fight for democracy. It was an honour of a lifetime. I have spent the best 10 years of my youth in social movements. If I can live up to 80-year-old, I would still have 50 years to walk alongside the people of Hong Kong, to continue the fight. If this is in doubt, please test my will against the whips of criminal punishment. I shall take this as a trial of my determination. I only hope that my brothers and sisters-in-arms can be inspired whilst I am imprisoned, to do goods and encourage others. I hope they shall have further courage and strength to be honest men and women, to fight against the lies of the ruling Chinese Communist authority.

“Hope lies in the hands of the people, change starts from resistance.’ It’s only through the power of the people and direct action that the society can be changed. This was so 8 years ago. This is still the case today. May the will of the people of Hong Kong be firm and determined, to fight for democracy, overthrow the privileged, and let justice be done. All hail for freedom! All hail for democratic socialism!

May justice and peace of my Lord Jesus Christ be with me, with your Honour and with the People of Hong Kong!

Vice President of the League of Social Democrats,
the 8th Defendant of the Umbrella Movement Case

Raphael Wong Ho Ming
10th April 2019

[英文學習] 到底該如何閱讀英文？

Extensive, intensive, or narrow reading? What is skimming and scanning?

英語學習者經常被要求在課堂上以多種方式閱讀。有些學習者被要求開口朗誦，讀出每個單詞。有些學習者則默念於心以理解文本。但默讀時，學習者該略讀其要義還是掃讀關鍵細節？抑或專注於語言功能還是練習閱讀策略？

English learners are often asked to read in diverse ways in the classroom. Some are asked to read orally and sound out each word. Others are told to read silently for comprehension. However, when reading silently, should learners skim for essential meanings or scan for key details? Or should they focus on linguistic features and practice reading strategies?

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Oral Reading

在找到一種閱讀方法之前，讓我們來檢視一下不同的閱讀類型。朗誦需要老師或學生大聲地朗讀，並幫助學生掌握聲韻，幫助他們改進語調、腔調、重音與節奏。默讀則包含精讀、泛讀以及窄式閱讀。

Before we can address these questions and find a suitable reading approach, let’s examine what the different reading types are.

Oral reading involves the teacher or students reading aloud and helps students to develop prosody, improving their intonation, tone, stress, and rhythm. Silent reading consists of intensive, extensive, and narrow reading, amongst others.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Intensive Reading

精讀需要學習者在特定的學習目標與任務中進行精細的閱讀。這通常是課堂上的要求，學生須專注在文法及標示語等細節。同時學生還須辨別關鍵詞彙，並在老師的指導下仔細且反覆地閱讀文本。其目的在於建立語言知識以及對字面意涵、言外之意與修辭關係的理解。閱讀材料通常是少於５００字的文本，因為較長的文本可能導致閱讀時難以關注到所有細節。

Intensive reading refers to reading in detail with specific learning aims and tasks. It is typically classroom-based, and students focus on features such as grammar and discourse markers. Students also identify key vocabulary, and text is read carefully and repeatedly with instructor input. The aim is to build language knowledge and understanding of literal meaning, implications, and rhetorical relationships. The materials used are usually shorter texts of 500 words or less at a time because it might be too difficult to focus on so many details with longer texts.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Narrow Reading

窄式閱讀可被視為一種特殊的精讀，它是基於「可理解輸入」此一概念，意即學生閱讀略高於自身語言能力的材料。如此一來，在老師的協助下，學生得以輕鬆地專注於新的語言特徵。在練習窄式閱讀時，教師通常會找同一作者或同一主題的文章。因此，關鍵詞彙與文法結構會重複出現，學生便有更多機會在稍異的文本中看到這些特徵。這是一種非常成功的方法，因為它可以增進學生對文本的理解。

Narrow reading can be classified as a specific type of intensive reading. It is based on the concept of comprehensible input, in which students read materials slightly above their current linguistic abilities. In this way, students can easily focus on new language features with the aid of their teacher. When practicing narrow reading, teachers can find texts by the same author or the same topic. Thus, key vocabulary and grammatical structures repeat themselves, and students get many opportunities to see these features in slightly different contexts. It is a highly successful method because the comprehension of the text is enhanced due to learner familiarity with the author and subject matter.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Extensive Reading, Scanning & Skimming

另一方面，泛讀需要學習者閱讀較長的文章，甚至閱讀整本小說以自娛並發展一般的閱讀技巧。泛讀經常是課外活動，因為老師可能會覺得這無法有效利用課堂時間，或者老師不希望課堂上太過安靜。

泛讀可能需要兩項技能：掃讀與略讀。我們可以掃讀關鍵細節或略讀要義。略讀與掃讀可使讀者大致掌握文本涵意。這並非意味著您在精讀時就不能略讀或掃讀，只是精讀通常專注在學習並理解語言特徵。當代的教育政策格外強調泛讀，因為我們期許學習者可以自主學習，並在課外進行閱讀。就其核心理念而言，泛讀鼓勵語言學習者讀其所愛！

On the other hand, extensive reading involves learners reading longer texts and even complete novels for enjoyment, and it aids learners in developing general reading skills. Extensive reading is usually done outside the classroom because teachers might feel it is not an effective use of class time, or are just uncomfortable with the extended silence.

Scanning and skimming are two skills commonly used in extensive reading. Readers can scan for key details or skim for essential meaning. Reading quickly with skimming and scanning can give readers a global or general understanding of the materials. This does not mean students cannot skim or scan when reading intensively, but typically, intensive reading focuses on learning and understanding linguistic features. Extensive reading is stressed in contemporary education policies, as learners are expected to be autonomous and read outside of class. At its core, extensive reading encourages language learners to read what they like!

★★★★★★★★★★★★

How should you read?

既然您已大致瞭解這幾種閱讀方式，您決定好要使用哪一種了嗎？答案是——您需要視情況而定！若您想進行泛讀，可閱讀更多有趣的新聞。若想精讀，您可以分析段落並與老師以及同學們回答問題。若想使用窄式閱讀，您可以找同一作者的同一主題文章，並專注在語言特徵。有些人甚至想以朗誦的方式來加強韻律或是重複閱讀來增加流暢度。

Now that you have a glimpse of different reading approaches, have you decided which you will use? The "answer" is that you need each for a different situation! You can practice extensive reading when reading for pleasure, or intensive reading when analyzing paragraphs with your teachers and peers. As for narrow reading, you can find articles by the same author on the same topic and focus on language features. Some might even want to practice oral reading to improve prosody or repeated reading to increase fluency.

訓練有素的老師可以傳授您各種不同的閱讀方法與策略，如此您便可自行練習。但即便您知道該怎麼做，您是否有足夠的決心與毅力？您該如何選擇閱讀材料並且積累閱讀策略呢？

A trained teacher can provide you with approaches and strategies for each situation so you can practice them on your own. However, even when you know how to read, do you have the determination and perseverance to read or do so much? How do you select the right materials, and how do you acquire reading strategies?

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Narrow Reading Course

如果您需要這些閱讀技巧與學習方法，也想練習窄式閱讀，那麼王梓沅老師的英文課程可以幫助到您。王梓沅老師將窄式閱讀拓展為窄式學習法，在不同的媒體上關注同一作者的同一主題資料。他的課程還使用「成長心態」與「恆毅力」學習法，傳授學習者如何開始並持之以恆，而後成為自己成功路上的最佳導師！

If you need these reading and learning strategies and want to practice narrow reading, Alexander Wang’s course is the one for you. Alex expands the narrow reading approach into narrow learning, focusing on effective language learning by using materials from the same author, the same theme, but different media. His class also guides students in developing a growth mindset with an emphasis on grit, teaching learners how they can start and sustain their learning.

The class aims to help learners become their own teachers on their English learning journey!

★★★★★★★★★★★★

Check out his class here:

限時折扣，最後倒數 >>> https://bit.ly/34DG64O

推薦該課程的所有收益將捐獻給慈善機構。在收到資金並完成捐贈後，我將會發表一個公告。

All proceeds from the referral of the class will be donated to charity. I will make an announcement when the funds are received and donated.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

References

Gardner, D. (2008). Vocabulary recycling in children's authentic reading materials: A corpus-based investigation of narrow reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(1), 92-122.

Krashen, S. (2004). The case for narrow reading. Language Magazine 3(5):17-19.

MacLeod, M. (2013). Types of Reading. Retrieved April 14, 2020.

★★★★★★★★★★★★

（轉）

【有關司法機構被官營媒體攻擊的聲明】

《人民日報》於2020年12月27日發表一篇抨擊香港法院在一宗涉及知名人士的案件中批准被告人保釋的評論文章，而文章發表的時候該獲准保釋的決定已進入上訴程序，我們就此表示嚴重關注。文章攻擊法院的判決，並形容《蘋果日報》創辦人黎智英「惡名昭彰，極度危險」，以及是「亂港禍首」。該報斷言在黎智英案中，不准保釋須是前設的常規，並要求司法機構「作出正確選擇」。文章又認為已經有足夠證據顯示黎智英已觸犯國安法第55條，該條訂明某些案件可以移交中國大陸審訊。當上訴委員會將於2020年12月31日就政府申請上訴許可召開聆訊，由國家政權控制和營運的報章刊登該篇評論文章，令人尤其擔心及被視為是試圖干預我們獨立的司法機關的程序公義。

作為致力守護長久以來珍而重之的法治和司法獨立的法律執業者，我們認為有責任提出以下關注，並以個人名義僅此聲明：

1、 官營媒體對司法機關毫無基礎的攻擊應當停止

在數位親建制人士及官方控制和營運的媒體 － 包括《文匯報》及《大公報》－ 要求「司法改革」及嘲諷「黃官」的日益壓力下，出現上述評論文章，我們深表憂慮。我們注意到司法機構自今年9月以來，已就對其日趨激烈的攻擊發表了四份聲明。

誠然，公眾有權討論及評論法院的裁決及其根據的事實及法律，惟討論不應流於憑空論斷、政治抹黑，或企圖向法院就某些案件的裁決施加壓力，否則公眾對司法機構的聲譽、專業和獨立勢必受到嚴重破壞。特別是《人民日報》刊登的評論文章，會被視為明顯地向法院將要審理的案件施加壓力，此舉可以是違反審理中的案件不應評論的原則，以及有損公平審訊。這些攻擊應當立即停止。

我們亦呼籲律政司採取行動，維護司法機構免受官方控制或營運的媒體作出毫無基礎和不實指控。正如高浩文法官在其判詞中指出，「在普通法司法管轄區，例如香港，傳統上法官和司法機構是不會公開地就針對其裁決和個人而作出的不公平和不適當的批評為自己辯護，而傳統上負責律政的官員則有責任反駁錯誤的指控，以維護司法機構和個別法官。」

2、 公平審訊及無罪假定

不論如何解讀，香港特區政府有法律責任保護每一位香港居民的基本權利不受侵犯，包括公平審訊的權利。我們質疑一旦涉嫌觸犯國安法第55條下，該等權利是否仍然受到保障。理由有兩方面：第一，我們質疑中國大陸在刑事審訊的程序中，對公平審訊是否有足夠的保障，那是由於中國尚未落實《公民與政治權利國際公約》，這亦是長久以來為人詬病。第二，12名香港居民於2020年12月28日在深圳鹽田法院受審的案件，沒有公開審訊，他們亦沒有權選擇他們委託的法律代表，令人質疑香港特區政府有否履行其法律責任。

上述關注，反映國安法無法為被告人提供足夠的基本人權保障，並在法律上存在很多不確定性。正如英國最高法院院長賓漢（Lord Bingham）在其著作《The Rule of Law》中說明，法治的核心是在一個地方裡，所有不論屬公共或私人的個人和機構，都必須受法律的約束及保障，而法律必須是公開和預先頒佈，以及由法院公開執行。因此，我們促請有關當局嚴格遵守法治原則，自我約束，以及謹慎運用國安法賦予的權力。

帝理邁
林洋鋐
彭皓昕
蔡頴德
黃耀初

2020年12月30日


【Statement on Continuous Attacks on the Judiciary and
Art. 55 of the National Security Law】

We note with grave concern that on 27 December 2020, l the People’s Daily published anr editorial piece criticizing a decision in respect of a bail application that is currently subject to an ongoing appeal. In attacking the judicial decisions in Apple Daily founder, Mr Jimmy Lai Chee-yin’s case, the People’s Daily has labelled him as a “notorious and extremely dangerous” and an “insurgent”. It added that the presumption against bail should be the norm in cases such as Lai’s and urged the judiciary to “make the right decision”. The commentary further claimed that there were sufficient grounds in Mr Lai’s case for invoking Article 55 of the National Security Law (NSL) - which allows certain cases to be transferred to Mainland China for trial. This type of commentary appearing in a newspaper run/controlled by the Central Government, when the Appeals Committee would soon be hearing the Hong Kong Government’s application for leave to appeal on 31 December 2020, is particularly worrying and borders on an attempt to interfere with the due administration of justice by Hong Kong’s independent judiciary.

We, the undersigned, in our personal capacity and as lawyers committed to safeguarding the Rule of Law and the independence of judiciary, we feel duty bound to draw attention to the following matters:

(1) Unfounded attacks against the judiciary by state-run/controlled media should cease

The above-mentioned commentary was made amid intensifying calls for “judicial reform” and deriding “yellow judges” from various pro-establishment figures and state-run/controlled media, including Wen Wei Po and Tai Kung Po. To that end, we note that the judiciary has had to issue a total of four statements since September this year, in light of the intensifying attacks mounted against it.

Whilst members of the public have the right to discuss and comment on court rulings for reasons grounded on fact or law, such discussion should not cross into bare assertions, imputations of political bias, or attempts to put pressure on the Judiciary to decide specific cases in a particular manner. Otherwise, public confidence in the integrity, professionalism and independence of the judiciary would be seriously undermined. Notably, the commentary published by People’s Daily, could be perceived as putting pressure on the judiciary to decide a pending case in a particular manner, which breaches the sub judice rule and could prejudice the accused’s right to a fair trial. These attacks should cease immediately.

We also call on the Secretary of Justice to take action to defend the Judiciary against unwarranted accusations led by state-run/controlled media. As Judge Russell Coleman noted in his judgment, “it has been the traditional view that Judges and the Judiciary do not speak out in defence of their decisions or to defend themselves against unfair and inappropriate criticism [...] in common law jurisdictions like Hong Kong, it was the tradition that the minister responsible for the administration of justice has the duty of defending the Judiciary or individual Judges against wrong accusations”.

(2) Concerns about fair trial and presumption of innocence

The Hong Kong Government has the legal obligation to protect any Hong Kong residents, whose rendition is sought, from violation of his/her fundamental and non-derogable rights, including the right to fair trial. We question whether such rights can be guaranteed upon invoking of Article 55 of the NSL. The reason is two-folded. First, we question whether China has adequate protection on the right to fair trial during the criminal process, as mainland China has not ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and has been long criticised on such. Second, the fact that the 12 Hong Kong residents who stood trial at Shenzhen Yantian People’s Court on 28 December 2020 were denied the right to open trial and the right to appoint lawyers of their choice, casts considerable doubt on whether the Hong Kong Government can fulfil its legal obligation.

These concerns reflect that the NSL lacks adequate protections to safeguard an accused’s fundamental human rights and lacks legal certainty. As Lord Bingham wrote in his book, The Rule of Law, at the core of the rule of law is the notion “that all persons and authorities within the state, whether public or private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws publicly and prospectively promulgated and publicly administered in the courts”. Accordingly, we urge the authorities to uphold strict adherence to the rule of law and exercise restraint and caution in invoking its power under the NSL.
Mark Daly
Michelle Tsoi Wing Tak
Kenneth Lam
Davyd Wong
Janet Pang Ho Yan

Dated this 30 December 2020

※動画の内容を一部修正しました。先程の動画にコメントを残していただいた方、申し訳ございません！各国からのコメントがとても嬉しいです。これからも世界の皆さんにも楽しい動画を届けられるように頑張ります！
The content of the video was partially modified. I'm sorry if you leave a comment on the previous video! I am very happy with the comments from each country. We will continue to deliver fun videos to everyone!
香港を広東語で撮りなおしました。香港のみなさん申し訳ございませんでした。香港大好きです！
對唔住,香港.我愛香港！

Thanks to people from other countries too!
いつもご視聴ありがとうございます！
翻訳機を使いましたが、文法や発音など間違っていたらすみません。
中国や一部の国では閲覧規制によりYouTubeを視聴できないそうなのでデータが取れなかったです。
「バイバイ」のハンドサインは国によって色々意味が違うと思いますが、日本での肯定的表現でやっています。

Thank you for watching my video!
I used a translator, but I'm sorry for the wrong grammar and pronunciation.
It seems that YouTube can not be viewed due to viewing restrictions in China and some countries
由于中国和某些国家/地区的观看限制，似乎无法观看YouTube
I think that the meaning of the "bye-bye" hand sign differs in different countries, but it is based on Japanese standards.
Νομίζω ότι η έννοια του σήματος "bye-bye" διαφέρει στις διάφορες χώρες, αλλά βασίζεται στα ιαπωνικά πρότυπα.
میں سمجھتا ہوں کہ "بائی بائی" ہاتھ کے نشان کے معنی مختلف ممالک میں مختلف ہیں ، لیکن یہ جاپانی معیار پر مبنی ہے۔
من فکر می کنم که معنی علامت دست "خداحافظ" در کشورهای مختلف متفاوت است ، اما بر اساس استانداردهای ژاپنی است.


鈴川絢子：主に鉄道が好きです。おもちゃも好きです。
2014年7月に第一子の男の子、常陸（ひたち）が誕生、
2017年12月に第二子の男の子、常磐（ときわ）が誕生しました。
千葉県出身です。宜しくお願い致します。

私の本 第1作「鉄分多め。」
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4847093607
第2作「鈴川絢子とちっくんの東京電車さんぽ」
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4533134610/
鈴川絢子のゲーム実況チャンネル：https://www.youtube.com/user/suzugame
鈴川絢子のTwitter：https://twitter.com/kinokostar_suzu
鈴川絢子のインスタグラム：http://instagram.com/suzukawaayako

I'm Suzukawa Ayako.
I'm from Chiba prefecture in Japan.
I am giving various videos with my interests, videos with my son, mainly on railway related.
In July 2014 a boy, the first child, Hitachi was born.
In December 2017 a boy, a second child,Tokiwa was born.
It is loose feeling, but thank you.

My published book, “A Little More Iron.”
http://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4847093607
second book,"Tokyo railway
walk"
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4533134610

Ayako Suzukawa’s Game Playthrough:
https://www.youtube.com/user/suzugame
Ayako Suzukawa’s Twitter：https://twitter.com/kinokostar_suzu
Ayako Suzukawa’s Instagram：http://instagram.com/suzukawaayako このチャンネルは鈴川の家族ビデオブログです。

中文都是「因為」但它們可以互相混用嗎❓❗️【因果關係Part2】Ricky//英語小蛋糕

👉「 多益教材」
馬上領取 : https://pse.is/PY3LT
(點進去後輸入教材密碼 145)
#多益高分#新制多益#神速解題
----------------------------------------------------------------------
課前考題（先留言在下方告訴我吧！📕）
Q：哪一個是正確的？
(A) My fitness is because of regular exercise.
(B) My fitness is due to regular exercise.
中文：因為我規律運動所以看起來精實。

沒看過之前影片的記得要去複習哦！（💡邏輯思路會更清晰）
👉破解【中文都叫「但是」However 等於 But 嗎？】https://youtu.be/9VVP_eGGYk4
👉秒解題【連接詞的分詞構句】https://youtu.be/EHrP5VDnsVQ
👉秒解題【閱讀測驗時態題】https://youtu.be/t_W_PW5iytk

------
國際新聞
【國際新聞：武漢肺炎】https://youtu.be/SRtsDI6iPRg
【國際新聞：2020台灣總統大選】https://youtu.be/slNQU8OQ5ww

英文文法
【感官型連綴動詞，look是一般動詞還是連綴動詞？】https://youtu.be/PhYo_Ae97Ro
【秒判斷單字詞性，易混淆的單字詞性】https://youtu.be/gvWetfXviTw
【名詞子句（上）】https://youtu.be/e_fzzCnJ_go

熱門影片
【去語言學校英文真的會變好？ 菲律賓語言學校推薦】https://youtu.be/bHEGfcP3jkc

多益高分系列
【多益高分7個必懂文法 】https://youtu.be/Os3eFKisucw
【新制多益8個必懂考前秘訣】多益990教我的事https://youtu.be/GkMkQ4I91uI

航空系列（考空服員\地勤）
【航空面試NG回答！一定不要這樣說】https://youtu.be/WvmyP2n1NyU
【第二關：角色扮演role play】https://youtu.be/UIXzsA6y0F0

實用英文系列
【超實用！職場必學五句片語】Ricky//英語小蛋糕https://youtu.be/Nj6ZfMODV2U
【完勝檢定！五種實用工具 輕鬆對付 聽說讀寫！】https://youtu.be/eVFGyS0QuA0
【一秒變外國人！增進聽力7大連音規則】https://youtu.be/9VYaHa4lwtA

來賓爆笑挑戰系列
【超爆笑聽力大考驗，熱門歌曲歌詞猜一猜】https://youtu.be/-LxlvkbDna0
【猜謎大亂鬥！英文片語猜猜看】https://youtu.be/Ri-fFz5Q-mI


我在AmazingTalker開課囉！
包含基本的生活會話，還有航空英文、商業英文
甚至是檢定英文，都可以來看看唷！
如果有其他英文需求也可以在頁面私訊我！
來我的教師頁面看看吧：
http://bit.ly/2WsxXvB

合作邀約 ricky@amazingtalker.com

每週四晚上8:00準時發布影片哦！
----------------------------------------------------------------------

我在AmazingTalker開課囉！
包含基本的生活會話，還有航空英文、商業英文
甚至是檢定英文，都可以來看看唷！
如果有其他英文需求也可以在頁面私訊我！
來我的教師頁面看看吧：
http://bit.ly/2WsxXvB

合作邀約 ricky@amazingtalker.com

每週四晚上8:00準時發布影片哦！
不定時週二晚上8:00發布有趣生活影片～
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Facebook 第一手看到訊息歡迎來按讚 + 搶先看
傳送門: https://goo.gl/R2DTW5

AmazingTalker 線上語言教學剪輯團隊
傳送門: https://goo.gl/LewJuV

「因為」別再用because啦！🔥【因果關係 超多用法一次學會】Ricky//英語小蛋糕

👉「 多益教材」
馬上領取 : https://lin.ee/oue8V3S
(點進去後輸入教材密碼 r143)
#多益高分#新制多益#神速解題
----------------------------------------------------------------------
如果「因為」 你只想得到 because......
那這個影片絕對超適合你🔥🥰

🌟特別加碼🌟
想知道 because of / due to / owing to ...的用法嗎？
🔥留言在下面讓我知道，我就會加碼拍成影片哦！

沒看過之前影片的記得要去複習哦！（💡邏輯思路會更清晰）
👉破解【中文都叫「但是」However 等於 But 嗎？】https://youtu.be/9VVP_eGGYk4
👉秒解題【連接詞的分詞構句】https://youtu.be/EHrP5VDnsVQ
👉秒解題【閱讀測驗時態題】https://youtu.be/t_W_PW5iytk

------
國際新聞
【國際新聞：武漢肺炎】https://youtu.be/SRtsDI6iPRg
【國際新聞：2020台灣總統大選】https://youtu.be/slNQU8OQ5ww

英文文法
【感官型連綴動詞，look是一般動詞還是連綴動詞？】https://youtu.be/PhYo_Ae97Ro
【秒判斷單字詞性，易混淆的單字詞性】https://youtu.be/gvWetfXviTw
【名詞子句（上）】https://youtu.be/e_fzzCnJ_go

熱門影片
【去語言學校英文真的會變好？ 菲律賓語言學校推薦】https://youtu.be/bHEGfcP3jkc

多益高分系列
【多益高分7個必懂文法 】https://youtu.be/Os3eFKisucw
【新制多益8個必懂考前秘訣】多益990教我的事https://youtu.be/GkMkQ4I91uI

航空系列（考空服員\地勤）
【航空面試NG回答！一定不要這樣說】https://youtu.be/WvmyP2n1NyU
【第二關：角色扮演role play】https://youtu.be/UIXzsA6y0F0

實用英文系列
【超實用！職場必學五句片語】Ricky//英語小蛋糕https://youtu.be/Nj6ZfMODV2U
【完勝檢定！五種實用工具 輕鬆對付 聽說讀寫！】https://youtu.be/eVFGyS0QuA0
【一秒變外國人！增進聽力7大連音規則】https://youtu.be/9VYaHa4lwtA

來賓爆笑挑戰系列
【超爆笑聽力大考驗，熱門歌曲歌詞猜一猜】https://youtu.be/-LxlvkbDna0
【猜謎大亂鬥！英文片語猜猜看】https://youtu.be/Ri-fFz5Q-mI


我在AmazingTalker開課囉！
包含基本的生活會話，還有航空英文、商業英文
甚至是檢定英文，都可以來看看唷！
如果有其他英文需求也可以在頁面私訊我！
來我的教師頁面看看吧：
http://bit.ly/2WsxXvB

合作邀約 ricky@amazingtalker.com

每週四晚上8:00準時發布影片哦！
----------------------------------------------------------------------

我在AmazingTalker開課囉！
包含基本的生活會話，還有航空英文、商業英文
甚至是檢定英文，都可以來看看唷！
如果有其他英文需求也可以在頁面私訊我！
來我的教師頁面看看吧：
http://bit.ly/2WsxXvB

合作邀約 ricky@amazingtalker.com

每週四晚上8:00準時發布影片哦！
不定時週二晚上8:00發布有趣生活影片～
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Facebook 第一手看到訊息歡迎來按讚 + 搶先看
傳送門: https://goo.gl/R2DTW5

AmazingTalker 線上語言教學剪輯團隊
傳送門: https://goo.gl/LewJuV