【專題訪問 Interview Feature】2019年度香港大學學生會周年大選中央幹事會候選内閣蒼傲訪問(外務篇) | Interview with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union of Annual Election 2019 (External Affairs)
(Please scroll down for English version.)
中央幹事會候選內閣蒼傲就外務議題接受本台訪問,就不同外務議題立場,包括不反對政府取締民族黨的原因、相信政府DQ議員合法的理據、初一事件有黑幫介入的看法、及對法律制度有信心的理由等發表意見。
訪問節錄如下:
1. 你們的政治光譜/政治立場是甚麼?
我們認為用現有的名詞並不能表達我們莊的政治立場,因為例如本土、港獨等,第一他們並沒有清晰的界定,或是社會一致的定義,我們都認為不論是政治光譜或是政治立場我們作為香港人或是香港接受教育的人,其實我們的立場都會傾向由香港出發。但由香港出發去考慮香港利益時,我們都要考慮時間軸。時間軸的意思是,我們到底在考慮短期還是長期的利益。加上香港的地理位置、經濟結構其實都十分依賴世界上大部份的國家,不論金融、出口產業,所以在考慮香港利益同時,我們都應考慮鄰近國家的政策、議案的推出。所以如果要用幾個字去形容我們的政治立場,我們會選擇「國際視野,本土出發」八個字。前者是考想利益的角度,後者是執行的角度。
2. 你們是否支持香港獨立?
首先我們認為它可以被自由地討論,特別是在大學之內。至於是否贊成香港獨立方面,港獨並非香港現時可執行最好的決策,因為尚有很多的選擇可加以考慮及討論。另外我認為香港內部的問題都非常嚴峻,例如我們在政綱小册子上提到的外務議題,如學生自殺、高樓價、創新科技嚴重落後等問題。這些都是我們內部必須解決和面對的問題,所以我們會將那些內部問題列為最優先需要處理的問題。
3. 你們覺得香港獨立是否合法?
我們認為任何符合法例的討論都是可被接受的,所以我們認為只要某個人或團體在現時完善的法律制度下,加上沒有違反法律,就應可就不同議題提出想法。
4. 你們是否同意香港政府取締香港民族黨?
首先我們相信香港的法治仍然相當完善,所以就香港一套完整司法制度體系下做出的判決,我們並沒有太多質疑或反對。對於民族黨被政府取締或禁止,社會上有不同聲音,但我們相信我們應遵守絕大部分香港市民都認同是完善的法律體系下作出的任何決策。
5. 你們是否同意香港政府DQ議員?
其實我們由始至終都相信,而坊間一些調查機構都指出香港的法治制度在世界上都名列前茅,所以我們相信這套法治制度可以帶來公平的審訊,所以對於有部分議員被DQ,我們願意相信整個判決過程是公平的,並且有足夠理據去支持政府所作的判決,所以我們對這件事沒有任何特別意見。
6. 你們是否支持人大釋法?
每一個法律的訂立,其實都是由一小部分的精英去開始建構框架,然後隨社會的進步不斷完善。所以法律並非一本已經印刷好的書,而是容許我們不斷修改、去完善,就一些前人的不足作補完。人大釋法亦都如是,我相信重點是我們希望這法列在微調後能得到愈來愈多香港人的支持,這才是一個成功的新詮釋。
7. 你們是否同意一國兩制?
我們支持所有在香港回歸時所簽訂的條文,其中當然包括一國兩制。
8. 你們是否支持國歌法和23條立法?
因為爭議聲非常之多,所以我們不希望對任何未實施或未明文規定的法例作出過多評論。這是對該法案有所偏頗,該法案到最後還有很多相議的空間,所以我們認為政府應充分考慮各種聲音,從而推出一條為大部分港人所接受的法例。
9. 你們對違法達義有何看法?
香港作為擁有完善法律的城市,任何人都有表達訴求或是行動的權利。我們主張每人都有自由去決定自己的事、想表達的聲音,但每人都應為這些行為勇敢承擔相認的法律責任。當然我們更相信這套法律體系是完善和公平的。
10. 你們對初一事件有何看法?
對旺角騷動,很多報紙傳媒都報道了有不法份子甚至黑社會的介入,所以旺角騷動的那一批示威者是否單純為表達而表達的市民呢?
11. 你們是否同意政府以暴動罪控告參與者?
就對這幾名人士進行拘捕的行為,我們希望香港政府有真憑實據去支持,以及整個審訊過程認該要公平。我希望他們得到公平的審訊。
Campus TV has interviewed with Prism, the Proposed Cabinet of Executive Committee, The Hong Kong University Students’ Union, Session 2019, with regards to their treatment of external affairs. Prism has expressed their stance and opinions on various external issues, which include: their not opposing the Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party, believing in the government’s legitimacy for the disqualification of legislators, believing in the involvement of gangs in the Mong Kok Incident of 2016, and expressing their confidence in the current legal system.
The interview excerpts are as follows:
1. Where do you stand on the political spectrum? / How would you define your political stance?
We believe the current word items are unable to express our Cabinet’s political stance. For example, if you consider the term localism or Hong Kong independence, these groups have not a clear boundary or universal definition given by the society. Whether it be the political spectrum or political stance, us who are Hong Kong-ers or who have been educated in Hong Kong, have a tendency to think from the standpoint of Hong Kong. If we consider the benefits from the standpoint of Hong Kong, we also need to consider the timeline. This (the timeline) means, that we should consider if these benefits are of short term or long term. Therefore, when considering Hong Kong’s benefits, we should also consider the policies and bills of neighbouring countries. Therefore, if we had to define our political stance in terms, it would be “international perspective that comes from a local standpoint”. The former is a consideration to the benefits, the latter is a consideration to the execution.
2. Do you support Hong Kong independence?
Firstly, we think this matter could be discussed freely, especially within the premises of the University. In terms of agreeing with Hong Kong independence, we think that Hong Kong independence is currently not the best option to be executed in Hong Kong, because there are still many other options to consider and discuss about. In addition, I think that Hong Kong’s internal affairs are very severe, like the external affairs that are mentioned in our campaign booklet, for example, students’ suicides, rising property prices, the severely outdated innovation and technology. These are problems that our internal department has to confront and resolve, therefore we put these internal affairs as our priority.
3. Do you think that Hong Kong independence is legal?
We believe any discussion that is in compliance with the law is acceptable. Therefore, we think that under the current, comprehensive legal system, with no breaching of the law, a person or group should be allowed to speak their thoughts on different issues.
4. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s banning of the Hong Kong National Party?
Firstly, we believe that Hong Kong’s rule of law is still quite comprehensive. Therefore, we do not have much hesitation nor opposition for a judgment that is based on what we consider to be an intact judicial system of Hong Kong. In terms of the banning of the Hong Kong National Party, the society has different voices, but we believe we ought to obey the judgment that comes from what the majority of Hong Kong considers to be a comprehensive legal system.
5. Do you agree with Hong Kong government’s disqualification of legislators?
Actually, we have since the very beginning believed in Hong Kong’s rule of law as quite a frontrunner in the world; this has been backed by some survey organisations within the community too, so we believe that this rule of law can bring out a fair trial. Therefore, in regards to the disqualification of some legislators, we willingly believe that the entirety of the judgment process has been fair, with sufficient arguments to back up the government’s verdict. We do not express any special opinions towards this incident.
6. Do you support the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress’ Interpretation of the Basic Law (SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, or Interpretation of the Basic Law by the SCNPC)?
For the enactment of every legislation, it starts from a small portion of elites that begin to build its (the legislation’s) framework, it then continues to be improved as society grows. For this reason, the law is not a printed book, it allows us to continually amend, better, and complete items that are left neglected or faulted by predecessors. This applies for the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL, I believe the most important thing is, we hope to gain more Hong Kong-ers’ support under these fine-tunings (by the SCNPC's Interpretation of BL), we think this is what counts as a successful re-interpretation of the law.
7. Do you agree with the constitutional principle of “one country, two systems”?
We support all the terms that were signed in the Handover of Hong Kong, and this definitely includes the principle of “one country, two systems”.
8. Do you support the National Anthem Bill and the enactment of Article 23?
Due to the many controversies on this matter, we do not wish to comment on any legislation that has yet to be implemented or stipulated in explicit terms. This would be a prejudice on the said bill(s). These bills still have a lot of room for negotiation, so we believe the government should consider different voices, so as to introduce a legislation that is accepted by the majority of Hong Kong-ers.
9. What are your views on the idea of achieving justice by violating the law?
Hong Kong is a city with a comprehensive legal system; anyone has the right to express their own appeal or action. We advocate that everyone has the freedom to decide for their own deeds and express their own thoughts, but everyone should also be responsible to bear the consequences of their actions. Needless to say, we definitely believe that our legal system is perfect and fair.
10. What are your views on the Mong Kok Incident in 2016?
With regards to the Mong Kok unrest, many media sources have reported about the involvement of many illegal parties, and even that of gangs or triads. So, are the demonstrators in the Mong Kok unrest really with pure intentions to speak up, for the sake of expressing themselves as Hong Kong citizens?
11. Do you agree with the government’s decision to charge participants (of the Mong Kok Incident in 2016) with the offence of rioting?
With regards to the arrest of those participants, we hope that the Hong Kong government has had solid evidence to support (their arrest), and that the trial process has been fair. I hope they receive a fair trial.
___________________________________
二零一九年度香港大學學生會周年大選其他候選人包括候選常務秘書麥嘉晉、校園電視候選內閣、學苑候選編輯委員會及候選普選評議員。
2019年度周年大選中央諮詢大會將於一月二十一日至一月二十五日在中山廣場舉行,時間為下午十二時半至二時半。
Other candidates for the Annual Election 2019 include the Proposed General Secretary Mak Ka Chun Eugene, the Proposed Cabinet of Campus TV, the Proposed Editorial Board of Undergrad, and the Proposed Popularly Elected Union Councillor.
The Central Campaign for Annual Election 2019 will be held from the 21st to 25th of January at the Sun Yat-sen Place, from 12:30 to 14:30.
同時也有1部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過2萬的網紅賓狗單字Bingo Bilingual,也在其Youtube影片中提到,喜歡這集嗎?記得分享給你的家人朋友唷! 1【reprisal 報復】- 名詞 The Taliban said it will investigate reports of reprisals and atrocities. 2 【Eurasia 歐亞大陸】- 名詞 The bridge is...
legal名詞 在 劉昱佑 Facebook 八卦
李戡發文指出,某臺大教授的著作有多處抄襲,我看完之後十分駭然。因為張亞中老師曾對蔡英文的論文事件發表評論:「倫敦政經學院不是正規大學」,著實是金玉良言啊!現在張總校長是不是也會發出正義的怒吼:「臺大出這種教授,不是正規大學。」
.
這樣的話,還真的虧大了,因為我才剛拿到畢業證書誒!早知如此,要選最正規的孫文學校就讀。不過似乎不必多慮,前述所指臺大某抄襲教授正是張亞中本人,張總校長是不會自我批評成非正規教授的。心中大石瞬間卸下,所以我拿到的,應該還能算是正規證書吧。
.
———(以下李戡全文)———
.
《張亞中,你抄錯行了!》
.
張亞中1998年出版《兩岸主權論》(台北:生智文化,1998)一書,不止一次抄襲楊永明1996年發表在《政治科學論叢》第七期的論文<民主主權:政治理論中主權概念之演變與主權理論新取向>。關於證明抄襲的方法論、抄襲者慣用的掩蓋手法和心態,我在《蔣介石日記的濫用》(被中共查禁)裡做了充分論證。現在我用這些方法,來還原張亞中怎麼抄襲楊永明,而且還抄錯行。
.
一、《兩岸主權論》第9到10頁,張亞中寫道:
.
國際法百科全書亦將主權定義為「一個國家獨立於其他國家之外,且於法律上不受其他國家的影響,以及國家對其領土和人民的政府權力享有最高性,與排他性的管轄權」。【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Installment 10., (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing and Company, 1987), pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」】
.
這段引文,和楊永明<民主主權>頁144的段落幾乎一模一樣:
.
國際法百科全書定義主權為「一個國家獨立於其他國家之外,且於法律上不受其他國家的滲透影響,以及國家對其領土和人民的政府權力的至高性和排他性的管轄權」【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty,” in Encyclopedia of International Law, op.cit., p.404.」】
.
楊永明和張亞中都引用了Encyclopedia of Public International Law的內容,不過楊永明漏寫了書名中的Public一字,我們翻開這本書第404頁,可找到楊永明引文對應的原文:
.
State sovereignty now meant a State's general independence from and legal impermeability in relation to foreign powers, and the State's exclusive jurisdiction and supremacy of governmental powers over the State's territory and inhabitants.
.
這段話明明出現在百科全書第404頁,而非第403-404頁,為什麼張亞中會寫成「pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」?
.
二、這個「兩段式頁數」的寫法,正好出現在楊永明論文頁143-144:
.
為方便區分起見,學者稱描述國家內部的主權概念為「內部主權」(或「國內主權」),而在國際法上的應用則被稱為「外部主權」(或「國家主權」)。【注釋是「See Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty,” in Encyclopedia of International Law, Rudolf L. Bindscdhedler et al eds. (Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing and Company, 1987), pp.397-418, at pp.403-404.」】
.
我們翻開百科全書,果然分別在第403和404頁看到「external sovereignty」(外部主權)和「internal sovereignty」(內部主權)的用法,說明楊永明的注釋沒問題。奇怪的是,楊永明這段引文,也出現在張亞中《兩岸主權論》第10頁:
.
有些學者區別主權的概念為「內部主權」與「外部主權」,前者指的是描述國家內部的主權;後者指的是國家主權在國際法的運用。【注釋是「Helmut Steinberger, “Sovereignty”, in Encyclopedia of Public International Law, op.cit., p.404.」】
.
由此可見,張亞中抄錯行了!張亞中根本沒看過Encyclopedia of Public International Law這本書,他這兩個出處,都是直接抄襲楊永明。名詞解釋那段,張亞中為了掩飾抄襲痕跡,故意在楊永明翻譯的引文裡改動數字,例如他省略了「滲透」兩字,殊不知這樣一省略,嚴重扭曲原意。換句話說,如果張亞中親自翻過百科全書,根本沒道理漏掉這個字。張亞中改動完楊永明翻譯的引文後,以為大功告成,在抄注釋的時候,卻不小心抄錯行——他該抄的是頁404,卻抄成了楊永明的另一個注釋頁397-418和頁403-404。另外,「內部主權」和「外部主權」那段,張亞中本來該抄頁397-418和頁403-404,卻抄成頁404。
.
三、除此之外,張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁8的引文「國家在其範圍內有宣稱不受其他限制和控制的自由,則必須同樣承認其他國家在其範圍內也有相同的自由。」【注釋是「F. H. Hinsley, Sovereignty (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), p.158.」】這段話和楊永明<民主主權>頁144「國家在其範圍內有宣稱不受其他限制和控制的自由,則必須同樣承認其他國家在其範圍內也具有相同的自由」只有一字之差,在張亞中自稱看過原文的情況下,他的中文翻譯和楊永明翻譯的幾乎一模一樣,只是將「具有」換成「有」,顯然構成抄襲。
.
四、同樣道理,張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁20的段落「國際法學界也開始強調民主制度是一項逐漸成形的國際規範,「民主統治」被強調為國家與政府合法性的構成要件之一。」【注釋是「Thomas Frank, “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance”, American Journal of International Law, Vol.86, No.1 (Jan. 1992), pp.46-91.」】這段話,張亞中抄自楊永明<民主主權>頁147的段落「國際法學界也開始強調民主制度是一項逐漸成形的國際規範,民主統治(democratic governance)被強調為國家及政府合法性的構成要件之一。」【注釋是「Thomas Franck, “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance,” American Journal of International Law, Vol.86, No.1 (Jan. 1992), pp.46-91.」】張亞中除了把「及」換成「與」,其他地方一字不漏照抄楊永明。
.
五、同樣道理,張亞中《兩岸主權論》頁20-21的段落「更有學者指出政治參與權已經成為一項普遍性原則,應該受到國際法的保障。」【注釋是「Gregory H. Fox, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 17(1992), pp.539-607.」】這段話,張亞中抄自楊永明<民主主權>頁147「福斯(Gregory Fox)更指出政治參與權(political participation)已經成為一項普遍性權利,而應該受到國際法的保障。」【注釋是Gregory H. Fox, “The Right to Political Participation in International Law,” Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 17(1992), pp.539-607.」】張亞中除了把「權利」改成「原則」,其他地方幾乎照抄楊永明。
.
凡是引用的文獻不是自己親手翻閱、而是從別人文章看到的,一定要加上「轉引」兩字,否則就是抄襲。這五個案例中,張亞中在注釋裡除了交代文獻來源,後面全都該加上「轉引自楊永明,<民主主權:政治理論中主權概念之演變與主權理論新取向>,頁XX」,但他都沒有。張亞中讀了兩個博士,必定了解學術規範,卻仍故意為之,有何資格動輒以「張老師」姿態教育別人?光是在《兩岸主權論》的其中一章,張亞中就有五個注釋抄自楊永明。有了這項紀錄,我很好奇張亞中在《歐洲統合:政府間主義與超國家主義的互動》(台北:揚智文化,1998)書裡引用的大量英文文獻,以及在《德國問題:國際法與憲法的爭議》(台北:揚智文化,1999)書裡使用的大量艱澀冷僻的德文文獻,其中有多少處可能有類似這樣的行為?
legal名詞 在 浩爾譯世界 Facebook 八卦
【浩爾快訊編譯:美國國務卿為台灣發聲全文】
美國國務卿發文了!等不及和大家分享
留言「+1」,就送你全文翻譯+詳細解析
美國為台灣發聲,美中戰火持續延燒?
雖然台灣依然缺席本次的世界衛生大會
但因著美國的大動作
也讓更多國家藉此機會認識台灣
接著讓我們看看昨天親自發聲明
向蔡總統致就任賀詞的 #美國國務卿 蓬佩奧(Pompeo)
為台灣譴責 WHO 的官方文件
-
The United States condemns Taiwan’s exclusion from the World Health Assembly. At a time when the world continues to struggle with the COVID-19 pandemic, we need multilateral institutions to deliver on their stated missions and to serve the interests of all member states, not to play politics while lives are at stake.
美國譴責世衛將台灣排除於世界衛生大會之外,值此世界持續對抗新冠肺炎之際,我們需要的是一個履行其既定使命的多邊機構,並為所有會員國的利益服務,而非在此生死交關的時刻操弄政治。
-condemn: 譴責
-multilateral: 多邊的(前篇文章也有出現的字!)
-at stake:處於危急關頭,此譯為生死交關
despite its close proximity to the original outbreak in Wuhan, China
儘管台灣距離疫情的爆發地——武漢相當接近
-proximity:接近、鄰近,名詞用法
*despite (prep.) 加名詞的用法又再次出現,後加its close proximity to,its是台灣的所有格,直翻為台灣與中國武漢的接壤、鄰近,稍加潤飾就成為譯文那樣
WHO’s Director-General Tedros had every legal power and precedent to include Taiwan in WHA’s proceedings
世衛秘書長譚德賽博士擁有一切法律上的權力與先例來將台灣納入世界衛生大會的程序中
-precedent:前例、先例
-proceeding:進行中的,表議程
The PRC’s spiteful action to silence Taiwan exposes the emptiness of its claims to want transparency and international cooperation to fight the pandemic
中國為了使台灣噤聲的惡意行為暴露出其高喊透明以及國際共同抗疫口號的空洞之處
-to silence:使…安靜、噤聲
-spiteful: full of spite, ill will, 充滿惡意的
-emptiness: empty的名詞,空泛、空洞的
*國務卿的政治地位:美國國務卿是美國聯邦政府中,繼美國副總統後的第二號內閣成員,也是講話份量舉足輕重的人物!
-
喜歡這樣的解析嗎?
記得留言「+1」看完整版翻譯!
原文連結在留言,歡迎分享
#快訊編譯系列
#作息破壞者浩爾
legal名詞 在 賓狗單字Bingo Bilingual Youtube 的評價
喜歡這集嗎?記得分享給你的家人朋友唷!
1【reprisal 報復】- 名詞
The Taliban said it will investigate reports of reprisals and atrocities.
2 【Eurasia 歐亞大陸】- 名詞
The bridge is one of the projects to connect Eurasia through infrastructure.
3【elevate 提升】- 動詞(正式用語)
South Korea plans to elevate animals’ legal status.
長期抖內好節目,支持賓狗!
https://pay.firstory.me/user/bingobilingual
有感恩回饋:
· 加入 IG 摯友清單(看得到綠圈圈)
· 點餐賓狗碎碎念主題
· 每月一集「抖內限定」的私房賓狗碎碎念
賓狗誠心徵求廠商乾媽乾爹!!
歡迎來信:weeklybingoenglish@gmail.com
口播案例:https://bingobilingual.firstory.io/playlists/ckmm0e1of9zai08974rfszzfh
想跟賓狗一起不死背、「玩單字」嗎?
歡迎加入臉書私密社團:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/883689222203801/
賓狗的 IG @bingobilingual_bb
https://www.instagram.com/bingobilingual_bb
賓狗的 FB
https://www.facebook.com/bingobilingual
陪賓狗錄 podcast:
https://www.youtube.com/c/BingoBilingual
(側錄影片)
你想要高品質中英對照新聞嗎?訂閱《風傳媒》,就能隨意暢讀華爾街日報的新聞,中英對照喔!原價一年一萬四,立刻降到三千九,趕快透過賓狗的專屬連結訂閱吧: https://events.storm.mg/member/BGWSJ/
跟賓狗 Line 聊天:
https://line.me/ti/g2/AnkujGhzM4qHqycKmUd9Nw?utm_source=invitation&utm_medium=link_copy&utm_campaign=default
在 KKBOX 收聽賓狗:
https://podcast.kkbox.com/channel/4tuXnkLJpEDF7ypC6S?lang=tc
legal名詞 在 民法Civil law_抵銷offset【法律名詞短片】 - YouTube 的八卦
... <看更多>