2013年1月22日 星期二

Chinglish by Michael Chugani

2013-01-22

Speeches can sometimes make or break a politician. Political speeches can also be very boring or memorable. The majority of Hong Kong politicians and government officials make very boring speeches. The late British prime minister, Winston Churchill, made many memorable speeches. So did the late US president John F. Kennedy. His most memorable speech was in 1961 when he said: "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech in which he called for racial equality for blacks was also memorable. When Barack Obama first ran for president he faced a lot of public criticism in 2008 after it was revealed his black pastor had said racist things about white people. He delivered a make or break speech to end the criticism against him by urging Americans to unite in opposing racism. Many people said his speech was so good it saved his candidacy.

        B efore Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying made his first annual policy speech last Wednesday many people said the speech was his last chance to win back the confidence of the people. In other words, he had to deliver a make or break speech. The expression make or break means you either achieve total success (make) or total failure (break). A make or break speech is a speech that is either so good that it saves a person or so bad that it destroys a person. The word memorable means something that is worth remembering. For example, the Beijing Olympics was a memorable event. A pastor is a Christian priest or minister in charge of a church.

        Was Leung's first annual policy speech so good that it won a lot of public support which will end the demands for him to step down? Or was it so bad that his critics will still be able to demand that he resign? I think his speech was neither very good nor very bad. It didn't make him (he didn't totally succeed) but it didn't break him (he didn't totally fail) either.

        *****

        演說或可成就或可摧毁(make or break)一個政客。政治演說可以沉悶非常,也可名留青史(memorable),香港大部份的從政者和政府官員的演辭卻非常沉悶。英國前首相邱吉爾就發表過許多令人難以忘懷(memorable)的演辭。美國前總統約翰甘迺迪亦是,他教人最難忘(memorable)的演說在一九六一年:「莫問國家可以為你做甚麼,要問你能為國家做甚麼。」馬丁路德金「我有一個夢想」的演講,為黑人的種族平權而疾呼,同樣刻骨銘心(memorable)。當奧巴馬於二○○八年首度競逐總統之位時,有人揭發他的黑人牧師(pastor)曾發表歧視白人的言論。他的演說「不成功便成仁」(make or break),呼籲美國人合力抵抗種族主義,終止了諸多對他的批評,許多人說他的演講好得挽救了他的候選資格。

        特首梁振英於上星期三發表他的首份施政報告之前,許多人說這是他贏取市民信任的最後機會。那即是說,他的演辭「不成功便成仁」(make or break)。習語make or break意指你要不大獲全勝(make)要不全盤失敗(break)。A make or break speech即是一篇要不好得救了某人,要不差得摧毁某人的演講。Memorable是指值得記念的,例如北京奧運是一項值得紀念(memorable)的盛事。Pastor是指基督教會裏的牧師。

        梁的首份施政報告是否好得贏盡掌聲,以致那些促他下台的人也閉口無言?抑或差得他的批評者仍然能夠迫令他辭職?我認為他的報告不好也不壞。它並沒有成就他(make him),也沒有摧毁他(break him)。

        mickchug@gmail.com

        中譯:七刻

        Michael Chugani 褚簡寧

Japan Makes Overture to China in Islands Dispute - NYTimes.com by Keith Bradsher

2013-01-22

BEIJING — A member of Japan’s coalition government arrived in Beijing on Tuesday with a letter for the head of the Communist Party, Xi Jinping, from the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, to try to help calm an escalating dispute between the two countries over contested islands in the East China Sea, Japanese officials said.

Separately, the Philippines announced on Tuesday that it would formally challenge China’s claims in the South China Sea before a United Nations tribunal that oversees the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The Philippines has been in a bitter argument with China since last spring, when China effectively took control of a series of rocky outcroppings in the South China Sea known in the Philippines as Scarborough Shoal and in China as Huangyan Island.

The Philippine secretary of foreign affairs, Albert del Rosario, said in Manila that China’s claim to much of the South China Sea was “unlawful.” China has “interfered with the lawful exercise by the Philippines of its rights within its legitimate maritime zones,” Mr. del Rosario said.

He emphasized that resorting to the tribunal meant that the Philippines could “present our case against China and defend our national interest and maritime domain before an independent international tribunal.” International law, he said, will be “the great equalizer.”

China drew up a map in the late 1940s that marked its territorial claims in the South China Sea — by some estimates, about 80 percent of the sea — with what it refers to as the nine-dash line. The country has consistently said it will not agree to arbitration by an international tribunal regarding counterclaims. Legal experts said that a matter brought before such a panel required negotiations, and that without China’s presence it was unlikely that a proceeding could take place.

“This is what I don’t see taking place,” said Jay L. Batongbacal, an assistant professor of law at the University of the Philippines in Manila.

A Chinese expert on the Asia-Pacific region, Su Hao of China Foreign Affairs University in Beijing, agreed with that assessment.

Both China and the Philippines need to agree on arbitration for the case to proceed, Professor Su said. “The Philippines action is ineffective,” he said. “It’s making trouble out of nothing.”

Aside from China and the Philippines, three other countries in Southeast Asia — Brunei, Malaysia and Vietnam — make claims to islands in the South China Sea. So does Taiwan.

China’s increasingly aggressive claims in the South China Sea, and the tensions with Japan in the East China Sea, have raised concerns in the Obama administration as Washington has indicated that it plans to strengthen its military presence in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Philippines, an American ally, has felt particularly aggrieved because China has kept patrol boats in the waters around Scarborough Shoal, preventing Filipino fishermen from using their traditional fishing grounds in a lagoon there.

Washington brokered an agreement last spring that called for the Philippines and China to withdraw government vessels from the area, American officials said. But after complying, China sent surveillance ships back and stretched a cable across the mouth of the lagoon, preventing Filipino fishermen from going there, the officials said.

The Philippines plans to contest all of China’s claims in the South China Sea, not just its claims on Scarborough Shoal, Mr. del Rosario said.

In the dispute between Japan and China, it was not immediately clear whether the visiting Japanese politician — Natsuo Yamaguchi, the leader of the New Komeito Party, which is considered less hawkish than the governing Liberal Democratic Party — would meet with top Chinese officials.

An official of the China-Japan Friendship Association, which appeared to be handling Mr. Yamaguchi’s visit, said after his arrival that the schedule for Mr. Yamaguchi during his stay in Beijing had not been made final.

Mr. Yamaguchi’s visit comes amid a drumbeat of bellicose commentary in the Chinese state-run news media about the need for China’s military to prepare for war, and criticism of Mr. Abe for trying to form alliances with China’s neighbors in Southeast Asia.

The feud over the islands, known as the Diaoyu in China and the Senkaku in Japan, reached a dangerous new level nearly two weeks ago, when both Japan and China scrambled jet fighters over the East China Sea. The United States is obligated under a security treaty with Japan to defend the islands, which were handed back to Japan by Washington in 1972 as part of the return of Okinawa.

In a speech in Hong Kong on Wednesday, a former Chinese diplomat, Ruan Zongze, said China wanted a peaceful resolution of border issues.

“We are absolutely committed to peaceful resolution, peaceful dialogue,” said Dr. Ruan, a vice president at the China Institute of International Studies, a research group in Beijing that is affiliated with the Foreign Ministry.

Dr. Ruan said the Chinese military remained under the control of the Communist Party. “Even if the military wants to be more aggressive, the party will push the brake,” he said in an interview before his speech at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club in Hong Kong.

......

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/world/asia/japan-china-island-dispute.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/B/Bradsher,%20Keith?ref=keithbradsher&pagewanted=print

新不如舊? / 維基解碼 by 王維基

22 Jan 2013 00:00:00 GMT

  當我們製作電視節目時,同事們都愛以「舊的」電視台作比較,比較我們的質素好多少。尤其當劇集預告片的反應不錯時,同事們都顯得雀躍非常;我卻很憂心,因為節目質素提升了,並不代表觀眾會轉台收看我們的節目。

 

  營運寬頻網絡生意時,當競爭對手提供6M服務時,香港寬頻就提供10M服務。即使速度是對等,或存有更大的差異也好,但客戶轉投我們公司的誘因是不大的。雖然速度快了差不多一倍,但對客戶而言,快了一倍並不代表甚麼,慣性會驅使他們繼續使用舊有網絡供應商。直至香港寬頻提供100M、1000M的服務,用家察覺100M、1000M與6M存在著很大的距離時,客源才會大幅增加。

 

  以另一個愛情關係的例子說明。我們的情況並不是在心儀的單身對象前,與其他競爭者爭奪,而是要介入一個擁有45年婚姻和感情基礎的家庭。這是一項很艱巨的挑戰。

 

  在45年的感情基礎下,就算你明顯比原有伴侶優勝,你必需要更努力跨出一大步,才能贏出;並不似前者,只要比對手優勝一點點就能取勝。

 

  所以說,我們的電視節目必須比舊的電視台有很大的改善、進步才能生存。

 

轉載自晴報