under review中文的八卦，PINTEREST和Yahoo名人娛樂都在討論

【點解中文先有「富不及三代」】

表面係話「分散投資」，實際係識避XYZ
（《金融時報》話超人啲老友走唔甩）

尋日英國《Financial Times》報導，香港法國巴黎銀行（BNP Paribas）法律部門主管，因為响私人FB恥笑某堆人剩係識响商場抄襲香港示威者話”...Monkey see, monkey do 好「被離職」。暗示係繼國泰之後，又一「顏色恐怖」例證。今日（9月28號）《金融時報》亞洲區兩大財經評論記者（唔係財經演員），聯手報導李嘉誠如何由香港”Superman” 變到被指為Hong Kong “cockroach king”。報導表面係講解原因，亦讚超人有遠見地晨早「分散投資」（去廢國）。但係隱隱地覺得，好似講解中國人「富不及三代」抄家歷史教訓咁嘅？

1981年國際財經雜誌《Far East Economic Review》，將李嘉誠變身成為”Hong Kong’s Superman”，從此「李超人」呢個朵無中國人唔識。而邊個同點解近期有人叫李生做「曱甴王」，相信大家都知，唔洗點長氣反轉再反轉翻譯。不過《金融時報》就加多腳，話香港去到咁嘅情況，臨近國慶之時 “Beijing...is keen for any opportunity to redirect the rage of Hong Kongers, who have been squeezed economically, away from the government and towards one of the city’s sons” （好希望乘乘機機，將從來都被經濟壓榨嘅香港人怒火，由政府A字膊咁卸落個去呢啲城市之子嗰度）。咁點解偏偏要揀超人呢？

因為其它嗰堆細粒啲嘅富豪，對住香港人團火就好似豆腐咁囉（vulnerable to anger），而李生係象徵人物同”above them all”。事實上，好多香港企業同公司已經被北京（唔知係咁適當武力）猛烈衝擊（fierce attack）。繼國泰匯豐之後，法國巴黎銀行同PwC都伏已中。而香港好多大粒佬（tycoons）都係靠地產發達，結果咪「被指控」（accused）令合理價錢住屋短缺嘅罪人。雖然北京將條怒火（ire）卸去超人呢個香港精英度，不過睇黎李生比佢啲老友（peers）醒好多，晨早看穿了（have seen these event years ago）。醒在一早分散投資响外國，近期仲重注廢國（多謝晒）。報導話，就係咁，財富咪可以傳落子子孫孫度（passed time heirs），唔洗被迫焗賣比國家（forces to sell to Beijing ）。

“Chinese guys, including LI Ka-Shing, know that businesspeople have historically （歷史上）not been protected（從不受保障） in China”，咁新地（Sun Hung Kai）同四叔（Henderson Land）呢啲，近十年絕少投海外嗰啲，典算呢？”...can’t start now and expect the same result. It’s a bit too late.” 即係So99y，太遲了，唯一辦法就係賣比國企（Chinese’s state-owner companies）吧。（依家係咪去到要捐，然後感覺穩陣啲？）

#2019版士改鬥地主

原文傳送門：
Hong Kong’s ‘Superman’ Li Ka-shing comes under fire
https://on.ft.com/2lNyRFB

各位，生成器也許已沒有用了。選管會一天就收到4500封電郵。看來，大家炸他電郵還是有點用的。

以下乃沈大師言為「內部AO提供範本」。的確是官話文章，請先仔細閱讀，才選擇是否發出電郵吧。

你還有5小時。

请广传，好人一生平安。

[#官方資訊] 早前分享了一位高級政務官朋友就《逃犯條例》爭議的感受，得到數千轉載，迴響十分熱烈，也有不少公務員私訊回應。本頁對象一直以黃藍以外的專業人士為主，雖然平日只分享國際視野資訊，但在關鍵時刻，也希望為一些平日對社會抽離的朋友，提供更多資訊參考。以下是我的另一位AO朋友擔心局勢惡化，希望以自己的方式真正為特區政府服務，因此以私人身份草擬的意見書，回應特區政府選舉管理委員會關於區議會選舉的官方諮詢，並使用了完美官僚理據、格式和文法，就DQ候選人提供了詳細意見。根據官方資訊，《逃犯條例》收到4500份意見書，其中3000份「贊成」，因此發出意見書並非毫無價值。這位AO表示，大家可以直接使用這格式，根據個人觀點加減內容直接電郵遞交，因為香港人大家都忙，這過程只需一分鐘，應該最符合成本效益。截止日期是7月10日或之前，請廣傳，好人一生平安。

10 July 2019

Chairman
Electoral Affairs Commission (EAC)
By Email: eacenq@eac.hk

Dear Chairman,

Public consultation on District Council Election proposed guidelines

I write to object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines, as it gives Government an unjust, unfair, and unchecked power to disqualify any candidate during the nomination period by reason of Government’s own political motives.

Chapter 3.1 of the Proposed Guidelines says that : “Under the law, the validity of a candidate’s nomination is to be determined by the Returning Officer (RO). The EAC is neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO”.

Chapter 3.9(b) of the Proposed Guidelines describes the requirement by which a candidate must declare (through signing a “Confirmation Form” by the EAC) that he would uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR.

It is totally unclear whether a Confirmation Form duly signed by a candidate is itself sufficient to discharge the candidate’s duty to declare his willingness to uphold the Basic Law and pledge allegiance to the HKSAR when he is elected to the office.

Previous elections showed that an RO, who was a civil servant (pitched at Administrative Officer Staff Grade C / District Officer) appointed to the role of RO prior to the election, could make subjective and arbitrary judgment about a candidate’s state of mind and political orientation, with selective reference to some or a few past writings, speeches, statements, expression of opinions, posts in social media platforms in relation to the candidate, instead of merely looking at a Confirmation Form duly signed.

I find it outrageous to see that Ms. Anne Teng, then District Officer (Eastern) appointed to the role of RO in a legislative council by-election last year, could refuse to acknowledge a confirmation form signed by Miss Agnes Chow Ting and disqualify her, citing absurd and arbitrary reasons with reference to some of Miss Chow’s previous remarks or those of her political party, and without giving Miss Chow a fair opportunity to respond to those reasons uttered unreasonably by the RO.

The Proposed Guidelines shows that the EAC has failed its duty to introduce any additional safeguard or measures to plug this unreasonable, unlawful and unconstitutional loophole, which may still be freely exploited by any RO in the next election driven by bad faith and political motive.

It is unacceptable that the EAC could confess that it is “neither empowered nor involved in the making of such decision and would not provide any advice on the decision made by the RO” (Chapter 3.1). I question how the EAC can still “ensure that an election is conducted openly, fairly and honestly at all times” – its statutory duty enshrined in the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance - when it is not involved in scrutinising or monitoring the exercise of an RO’s power in disqualifying any candidate at the RO’s own political preference.

The Guidelines did not describe in detail how an RO could, on his or her own, research during the short nomination period the political belief and past sayings of any candidate. The Guidelines are also silent as to whether the RO would have received biased or secret advice from any agency such as Department of Justice, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Home Affairs Department, Information Services Department, etc., which may have compiled a detailed recollection of a candidate’s previous remarks in advance. It was suggested by some that such a compilation of speech or opinion records prepared by any agency other than the RO could have assisted the RO unlawfully in reaching a dangerous disqualification decision to deprive a candidate of the right to stand for the election.

I must remind the EAC that the right to stand for election is a fundamental right guaranteed under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 25 also states that “political opinion may not be used as a ground to deprive any person of the right to stand for election.”

I am disappointed to see that the proposed Guidelines have not offered anything substantive to protect a candidate from the RO’s unlawful interference in the election by disqualifying candidates he or she dislikes. The EAC must look at this carefully to see what it can do.

The current remedy about determining the lawfulness of an RO’s disqualification decision through an election petition to be adjudicated later by the court one or two years after the actual election is totally unsatisfactory, with the lapse of time which delays the timely delivery of a just outcome.

I stress that I object to Chapter 3 of the Proposed Guidelines in its entirety. I urge you to review all the processes described in Chapter 3 again and independently. In so doing, you must resist all political considerations wrongly dictated by the Chief Executive, Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, Department of Justice, or other government agency seeking to disturb the fairness and integrity of the forthcoming district council election.

Yours sincerely,

XXXX

更新：有熱心網友翻譯為中文版，並對原文作出修訂，請隨便share／修改：

10 July 2019

選舉管理委員會主席 鈞啓

選舉管理委員會主席鈞鑒： 關於區議會選舉活動建議指引公眾諮詢事宜

本人謹致函對建議指引第三章表達反對意見。建議指引第三章將賦予政府不公平、不公正以及不被箝制的權力，容許政府於提名階段取消香港市民的參選資格，以迎合政府自身的政治目的。

建議指引第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」
建議指引第三章3.9(b) 要求候選人透過簽署選管會擬備的確認書表明他／她擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠。

至於候選人是否能夠簽署確認書就能滿足擁護《基本法》並保證對香港特別行政區效忠的要求，建議指引對此完全沒有清晰交代。

過往選舉顯示，首長級丙級政務官／民政事務專員級別的公務員於選舉前獲委任為選舉主任，便能夠就候選人的思緒及政治取向作出主觀且隨意獨斷的決定，並只需揀選候選人往日曾經發表的文章、言論、宣言、意見表達、社交媒體帖文以及社交媒體專頁發佈關於對候選人的帖文穿鑿附會，當作輔證，而非僅以候選人是否有簽署確認書為單獨基礎作判斷。

去年立法會補選，時任東區民政事務專員鄧如欣獲委任為選舉主任，居然拒絕周庭小姐簽署的確認書，以周庭小姐及其所屬政黨昔日的言論去佐證選舉主任荒唐的理由，去褫奪周庭小姐的參選資格，並且沒有給予周庭小姐公平機會回應選舉主任的無理指控，實在令人憤慨。

由建議指引可見，選舉管理委員會並無引入任何措施或保障，去堵塞上述不合理、不合法、不合憲的漏洞。今後選舉主任依然可以使用此漏洞，依據其個人的政治目的或理念，惡意褫奪任何香港市民的參選資格。

選舉管理委員會於第三章第一部分（3.1）指：「根據法例，候選人的提名是否有效 ，完全是由選舉主任作出決定，選管會無權並一向沒有參與， 亦不會給予任何意見。」此點完全不可接受。當選舉管理委員會對選舉主任按其個人政治取向褫奪候選人參選資格的權力不作任何箝制、監察或審查， 又能如何履行其法定職責，「確保在香港舉行的選舉是以公開、公平和誠實的方式進行」呢？

建議指引並無對選舉主任如何可於短促的提名期內研究並審查任何候選人的政治理念及昔日言論有任何著墨。 建議指引亦未有論及選舉主任會否收到其他機構的秘密意見或者偏頗意見。上述的其他機構，例如律政司、內地及政制事務局、民政事務總署或政府新聞處等，可能預先詳細記錄相關候選人的昔日言論。據悉，上述由第三方準備的詳細記錄可能不合法地導致選舉主任作出褫奪候選人選舉資格的危險決定。

本人必須提醒選舉管理委員會，被選舉權是獲香港基本法及香港人權法案保障的基本權利。聯合國人權事務委員會第25號一般性意見亦指出：「不得以政治見解為由剝奪任何人參加競選的權利。」

本人對建議指引並未就保障候選人不被選舉主任按其個人喜惡褫奪資格，防止選舉主任非法干預選舉採取任何措施深感失望。選舉管理委員會必須詳細檢視自己對上述問題有何解決方法。

就選舉主任褫奪參選資格的合法性，目前透過選舉呈請，並於選舉完結一兩年後由法庭裁決的安排實在強差人意。當中所耗的時間令公義遲來。
本人對建議指引第三章完全反對。本人懇求主席重新並獨立審視第三章所包含的所有程序。在重新審視的時候，懇請閣下撇除並抗拒所有政治考量，尤其是來自行政長官、政制及事務內地局、律政司及其他政府機構企圖干預未來區議會選舉的誠信和公平性的政治考量。

敬祝 鈞安 XXXXXXXX 敬上

2019年7月9日

【亞洲究竟何時才會通過同性婚姻？】（中譯）

Foreign Policy 於日前（11/30) 刊出專文報導台灣婚姻平權法案進程，文章以伴侶盟發起「婚姻平權革命陣線」，於 2014/10/5 彩虹圍城行動中，群眾把婚姻平權四個大球推入立院作為開頭。精要勾勒了近年來台灣婚姻平權發展簡史，並詳盡分析了目前法案風雲詭譎的政治情勢，報導也委婉但明確點出，婚姻平權法案的通過與否，正在考驗著蔡總統的領導能力與政治誠信。

原文 參見
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/11/30/marriage-equality-in-taiwan-isnt-a-done-deal-tsai-ing-wen-legislation-lgbt-taipei/?wp_login_redirect=0
作者/LINDA VAN DER HORST
2016年11月30日
中文翻譯：Tasha Chang

標題：When Will Asia Finally Have Same-Sex Marriage?
亞洲究竟何時才會通過同性婚姻？？
Taiwan is on the verge of becoming the first Asian government to legalize marriage equality. But the public is deeply divided.
台灣即將成為亞洲第一個同性婚姻合法化的國家，但輿論仍高度分歧。
In October 2014, a crowd at an LGBT rights rally in Taipei, one of many, lobbed four large red balloons emblazoned with the Chinese characters for marriage equality into the fenced courtyard of Taiwan’s legislature. At that time, a comfortable majority of Taiwanese supported same-sex marriage; a number of polls in the self-governing island of 23 million indicated as much, with one showing as many as 71 percent in favor. But several initiatives to amend the law to achieve marriage equality, first mooted in 2003, have not been successful. Two years later, three marriage equality bills now sit on legislators’ desks; although international media have been quick to announce that Taiwan stands on the cusp of being the first government in Asia to achieve marriage equality, the island’s public seems deeply divided. In the latest poll on the subject, released on Nov. 29, 46 percent of respondents supported marriage equality, while 45 percent opposed it. Meanwhile, Taiwan’s lawmakers and its civil society have been more cautious than recent headlines in Western media suggest.

2014年10月，在架起拒馬的立法院外，有一大群為了同志權益發聲的群眾，高推著四顆分別寫著「婚」、「姻」、「平」、「權」四字的紅色大球，推往立法院的方向。當時，在有著2,300萬人口的台灣，有絕大多數民眾都支持婚姻平權，幾個民意調查也顯示同樣的結果，其中有個調查的支持度甚至還高達71%。然而，最早於2003年所發動，接續欲修法以達成婚姻平權的數個提案，最後都無疾而終。兩年後，三套版本的婚姻平權法案現正擺在立法委員的案前等待審議。雖然國際媒體迅速下了判斷宣告台灣即將成為亞洲第一個達成婚姻平權的國家，但台灣的民意似乎仍高度分歧。最近一次於今年11月29日公布的一份調查指出，46%的受訪者支持婚姻平權，另有45%的受訪者表示反對。同時，相較於西方國際媒體樂觀的報導走向，台灣的立法委員與公民社會的態度反而較為小心謹慎。

Island-wide marriage equality initiatives have been unsuccessful in spite of growing support over decades. Even without national legislation, many local governments in Taiwan now allow same-sex couples to participate in collective weddings and to record their partnership in household registries across the island, although neither action confers any legal rights.

過去數十年，即便婚姻平權的支持度越來越高，推動婚姻平權的行動卻屢遭挫敗。雖然中央尚未立法保障同志權益，台灣有許多地方政府已開放同性伴侶參與聯合婚禮並開放同性伴侶註記，然無論是聯合婚禮還是同性伴侶註記，皆未能給予同性伴侶法律上的權利。

To many, the election of President Tsai Ing-wen and her Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in January portended a broader, deeper change. Tsai openly made statements that appeared to support marriage equality during and after her campaign. In an October 2015 Facebook video posted to coincide with Taipei’s annual LGBT pride parade, Tsai exclaimed, “Everyone is equal before love.” A year later, she posted a photo on her Facebook page showing a rainbow, adding that her “belief has not changed” post-election. In August, Tsai appointed the first transgender official in government, Audrey Tang, as executive councilor for digital policy, which looked like another step toward acceptance of different gender norms.

對於許多人來說，現任總統蔡英文與其所屬政黨民主進步黨（民進黨）在一月總統大選的勝選，預告了更大幅度、更深程度的改變。無論是在選舉期間或當選後，蔡英文數次公開發表支持婚姻平權的文章。2015年10月，為響應臺北的年度同志大遊行，蔡英文的臉書發表了一支影片，影片中的蔡英文說道：「在愛之前，大家都是平等的。」一年過後，她在臉書上發佈了一則彩虹橫跨天際的照片，補充道：「雖然我的身分變了，但是我相信的價值沒有改變」，強調選後立場沒有改變。今年八月，蔡英文內閣任命首位跨性別官員唐鳳擔任政務委員，督導數位經濟與開放政府。此舉看來又是另一個接納不同性別典範的舉措。

Since Tsai took office this May, pressure has been building on her to deliver.
自蔡英文五月就任後，要求實現承諾的壓力升高

Since Tsai took office this May, pressure has been building on her to deliver. Yet she has never explicitly promised that her administration would push for same-sex marriage legislation, and critics have feared that once in office, she would find herself unable to follow through on her progressive rhetoric. The party that Tsai leads, the DPP, “has neither devoted sufficient resources to communicate the issues of marriage equality nor to reconcile differences within the party,” Victoria Hsu, who heads the nonprofit Taiwan Alliance to Promote Civil Partnership Rights (TAPCPR), told Foreign Policy.

蔡英文自今年五月就任後，要求她實現承諾的壓力不斷升高。然而，蔡英文卻從來沒有公開承諾她的行政團隊會推動婚姻平權的立法，批評者認為，一旦就任，蔡英文就無法堅持實現她過往曾發表過充滿進步性的言論。非營利組織台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟理事長許秀雯向《外交政策》表示，「蔡總統所領導的民進黨一直沒有真正投注夠多的資源在婚姻平權議題之上，或去溝通與化解黨內歧見。」

It was therefore a setback when Justice Minister Chiu Tai-san announced in August that his ministry still intended to introduce its own same-sex partnership bill — but only in 2017, after studying the impact of such a law on Taiwanese society. (In Taiwan, ministries can introduce bills into the legislature.) The effort dates back to the previous, more socially conservative Kuomintang (KMT) administration of Ma Ying-jeou and is an attempt to compromise between supporters of marriage equality and religious groups opposed. Proposing a separate law for same-sex partnership is politically easier, as it leaves the institution of marriage as currently constituted unchanged.

於是，當法務部長邱太三在八月宣布，經過研究相關法律對於台灣社會的影響，法務部仍傾向在2017年推出同性伴侶法時（台灣的行政部門可自行推出法案送進立法院審議），對於同志社群來說是一大挫敗。推行同性伴侶法可溯及較為保守的國民黨馬英九政府當權時期，用意在面對支持婚姻平權的群眾與反對婚姻平權的宗教團體中取得妥協。對於當政者而言，推動同性伴侶專法因未修改現行婚姻制度，在政治上的壓力較小。

In the absence of strong top-down leadership on the issue from Tsai, momentum for the bills currently under consideration has come from the bottom up. Audrey Ko, the chief editor of Womany, an online media outlet focused on gender issues and LGBT rights, says a stigma remains for gays and lesbians in Taiwan, one her company seeks to dispel. Other organizations, such as the Taiwan Tongzhi (LGBT) Hotline Association, perform peer counseling and advocacy work. Even corporations are chipping in; in March, McDonald’s released a commercial in which a son comes out to his father in one of its restaurants. (The father accepts it.)

缺少蔡英文「從上而下」貫徹的領導力，對於三個版本婚姻平權法案的支持聲量多來自「由下而上」的力量。關注性別與同志議題的線上媒體女人迷總編輯柯采岑表示，臺灣的同志族群還是被污名化，而女人迷就是想要破除此種污名；其他的組織例如台灣同志諮詢熱線協會則提供同志諮詢服務與倡議。企業也紛紛響應婚姻平權的議題。今年三月，在麥當勞發表的電視廣告中，有一個兒子在麥當勞向自己的父親出櫃（而父親也接受他了）。

This summer, a number of Taiwanese pop artists organized a benefit concert to raise awareness for marriage equality; tickets sold out in minutes. Pop superstar Jolin Tsai performed a lesbian-themed song for the occasion. In the music video for the song “We’re All Different, Yet the Same,” she makes the case for marriage equality by describing the plight of a woman whose partner of more than 30 years is hospitalized; the woman is unable to sign a consent form for emergency surgery because she is legally not a spouse or family member.

今年夏天，有多個臺灣流行音樂藝人組織了一場為婚姻平權而唱的公益演唱會，演唱會門票一開賣就在幾分鐘內售罄。流行樂天后蔡依林在該場演唱會中也演出以女同志為主題的歌。在她的「不一樣又怎樣」的MV中，描述了一對相守30年的女同志伴侶，其中一位因病住院，然她的伴侶卻無法在她需要進行緊急手術時簽署手術同意書，因為她的伴侶並不具有配偶或是親屬的身份。

A real-life version of this tragedy triggered public outcry and reinvigorated support for marriage equality. On Oct. 16, 67-year-old French professor Jacques Picoux fell to his death from the top of a 10-story building in Taipei, police said. He is thought to have committed suicide after depression caused by the death of his partner due to cancer; Picoux was unable to make medical decisions for his partner in his final days, as Picoux had no legal status. In a response to this outcry, legislators from the DPP and the KMT, as well as the caucus of the New Power Party (NPP), a young activist organization, all introduced similar marriage equality bills.

此種悲劇的真實案例引發了社會上強烈的抗議聲浪，推動婚姻平權運動更進一步。在今年10月16日，據警方表示，67歲的法國籍教授畢安生（Jacques Picoux）從位於台北的10樓住家一躍而下身亡。據悉，他有可能是因長期伴侶因癌症過世所引發的憂鬱症而自殺。當畢安生的伴侶在癌症末期時，因他沒有法律地位而無法替伴侶做醫療決定。為了回應關於婚姻平權的呼聲，民進黨與國民黨的立委以及由年輕的社運組織所組成的時代力量的黨團都推出了類似的婚姻平權法案。

All three proposals would amend the Taiwan Civil Code to open marriage to same-sex couples, but they differ in how to do so. DPP legislator Yu Mei-nu’s proposal introduces a general provision extending to same-sex couples the right to marriage, as well as other family law rights that accompany married status. But it leaves further gendered language across the civil code intact. The proposals of KMT legislator Hsu Yu-ren and the NPP would make references to “husband and wife” and “father and mother” gender-neutral throughout all relevant civil code provisions. These latter two proposals have great symbolic meaning, because they remove a heterosexual presumption from the code, but the legal effect is likely no different than Yu’s proposal.

這三個提案都主張修改民法將婚姻制度對同性伴侶開放，但對於如何開放則各有其詮釋。民進黨尤美女的版本採用一概括條款(註：新增民法971-1條)使同性配偶適用夫妻、父母子女等相關權利義務，但保留了民法中「性別化」的法律用語，未加修改。國民黨立委許毓仁與時代力量黨團的版本則將「夫妻」、「父母」等現行民法中的用語性別中立化。許毓仁與時代力量的版本，將異性戀預設的用語「性別中立化」而具有重大的象徵性意義，但若在法律適用結果而論，三個版本並無太大差異。

There is still a long legislative road to travel before Taiwan can become the first Asian government to legalize same-sex marriage. The bills passed their first reading on Nov. 17, but the DPP caucus whip has said the proposed bills will next be reviewed on Dec. 26. During the review process, any legislator can introduce a competing same-sex partnership act. Even if the bills were to enter a second reading, they could still face a boycott and be removed from the agenda. The bills will only become legislation after passing three readings.

臺灣要成為亞洲第一個將同性婚姻合法化的國家，仍有一大段立法之路要走。婚姻平權三版本的民法修正案都在今年11月17日通過了立法院一讀，而民進黨黨團總召表示，下一次審議的時間為12月26日。在審查過程中，任何一位立法委員都可以提出同性伴侶法作為對案。即便三個版本的婚姻平權法案進入了二讀，也還是有可能面臨杯葛而無法排進立法院的議程中。這三個版本的法案要通過三讀才有可能正式成為法律。

As these bills went through their first reading in the legislature this month, thousands of people protesting against marriage equality, and only several hundred rallying for it, gathered on Taipei’s streets.

當三個版本的法案本月在立法院通過一讀後，上千名反對婚姻平權的民眾走上台北街頭集結，當天支持婚姻平權而上街的民眾僅數百人。

As these bills went through their first reading in the legislature this month, thousands of people protesting against marriage equality, and only several hundred rallying for it, gathered on Taipei’s streets. Opposition to marriage equality in Taiwan largely comes from small but well-organized and vocal conservative religious groups. Four people reportedly even managed to storm into the legislative meeting room, shouting that the “legislators are monsters” and would want to change Taiwan “into an AIDS island.”

這三個版本的法案本月都在立法院通過一讀，為此，上千名反對婚姻平權的民眾走上台北街頭集結，然當天上街支持婚姻平權的民眾卻只有數百人。在台灣，大部分反對婚姻平權的民眾來自規模小但組織嚴密且發言聲量大的保守宗教團體。據報載，甚至有四名反對修法的民眾嘗試要衝進立法院司法及法制委員會的會議室，高喊著：「立委都是怪獸」、台灣要變「愛滋島」。

It is hard to tell whether the legislature will pass a same-sex marriage bill this time, says Hsu of TAPCPR, partly because of internal opposition within the DPP and KMT. (The NPP caucus fully supports its bill but only holds five seats in legislature.) Tsai has reiterated that the bills are “clear evidence” marriage equality has support across all parties. But even Yu, who introduced the DPP bill, says she is only cautiously optimistic about the chances of passing a marriage equality law.

台灣伴侶權益推動聯盟理事長許秀雯表示，現在沒有辦法預知立法院是否會通過婚姻平權法案，情勢走向如何，真的很難說。因為主要政黨國民黨及民進黨的立委雖然都有提出婚姻平權民法修正案，但這兩個黨裡面也都有反對者（時代力量雖然全黨都支持婚姻平權，在立法院內也只有五個席次）。蔡英文總統數度表示，不同版本婚姻平權法案的推出，即為此議題獲得跨黨派支持的「明證」。然而，即便是推出民進黨版本婚姻平權法案的尤美女立委也表示，對於婚姻平權是否能過關成為法律，她仍只抱持審慎樂觀的態度。

Outside lawmakers’ offices, the battle for public support continues. If anything, it seems to be waning precisely at the time when it will be most needed. “More and more people are confessing that they love gays but that they don’t support same-sex marriage,” said Ko, because they believe allowing same-sex partners to get married will harm traditional family values. She is therefore unsure whether Taiwan will manage to pass a bill in the next year. At least, Ko added, “people are talking [about it], and it is not a taboo anymore.”

在立法委員的辦公室外，爭取民意支持的戰爭仍未停歇。若真要說，此時此刻婚姻平權運動最需要的是什麼？大概就是更多的支持。女人迷總編輯柯采岑表示，「有越來越多人坦白表示，他們愛同志但是不支持婚姻平權」，因為他們認為，若同性伴侶可以結婚，將損害傳統家庭價值。」她也說，不確定臺灣能否在明年內通過婚姻平權法案。她補充：「但至少，大家都開始討論（婚姻平權法案）了，這再也不是禁忌了。」

We are a pair of sisters from Singapore and we post a video on YouTube every week! :D

我们是来自新加坡的姐妹花，每周都会发视频哦～ 我们的视频，都会尽量加上中文字幕，方便大家都理解，所以记得订阅支持我们


GET TO KNOW US BETTER AT:
Tiffanie - http://instagram.com/iamtiffanie
Michy - http://Instagram.com/linmixue
FACEBOOK PAGE - https://www.facebook.com/TiffWithMi/
Collaborations/Advertising - tiffwithmi@gmail.com


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


4 Power Bank Giveaway (4 winners, 1 Power bank per person)

All you need to do is:

1. Follow our Instagrams @linmixue & @iamtiffanie
2. Give this video a thumbs up!
3. Comment your instagram username under this video

That’s it!

End of Giveaway: 1 July 2018
THATS ALL! GOOD LUCK!
*Open to Singapore and Malaysia residents only

中文預告復仇者聯盟3 : 無限之戰
https://youtu.be/2tZwt7HADWI
大家好~歡迎來到萬人迷電影院!
想要了解電影相關的介紹與評論
或是知道即將上映電影的預告分析及彩蛋解析
歡迎訂閱本頻道~感謝你的支持與收看
訂閱萬人迷電影院頻道:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6rPKxdlOSh-mo-QvMXBqtg
前往萬人迷電影院臉書:
https://www.facebook.com/1048532711893796
============================================
All videos on my channel are only used for commentary.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.

V20各方面睇都表現得唔錯，勝在夠多功能，但係點解偏偏咁少人嘗識佢呢？

Follow me here:
FB: @anson.cheung.58
Snapchat: @aaa4321l

Business Inquiries: [email protected]

background music:
Severe Tire Damage Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/