http://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-opinion/article/1678181/government-must-come-solution-shame-subdivided-flats
PUBLISHED : Saturday, 10 January, 2015, 1:44am
When people would rather sleep in the street than live under a roof, something is clearly amiss. We are, of course, talking about the notorious subdivided units - shoe-box partitions that can barely fit in a bed for individuals or families, all crammed into what would have been a standard flat for one family. As this newspaper reported on Tuesday, the conditions in subdivided flats are so distressing that some people end up sleeping in the street.
amiss /əˈmɪs/ wrong; not suitable or not as expected
distressing /dɪˈstres/ a feeling of extreme worry, sadness, or pain
The story of Ah Keung may be extreme. The 48-year-old makes around HK$4,000 a month from doing odd jobs and has shuttled between sleeping on the streets and in subdivided flats over the past eight years. He currently beds down under a pedestrian flyover in Yau Ma Tei, saying it is more pleasant than living in a cubicle. But he and dozens of others are to be evicted, as district councillors have decided to "beautify" the area by fencing it into a storage area for rubbish bins.
odd jobs different types of jobs
a cubicle: a small room
This sorry state of affairs speaks volumes about the city's housing conundrums. An official estimate put the subdivided housing population at about 171,000, prompting calls for urgent government intervention. Officials have floated the idea of regulation with a licensing system - a halfway house between a total ban and keeping the status quo. But it was soon shot down amid worries that many tenants living in unsafe units would eventually be displaced. Flats that can meet fire and building safety requirements will charge more exorbitant rents.
sorry: feeling sadness, sympathy, or disappointment, especially because something unpleasant has happened or been done
speaks volumes: If something speaks volumes, it makes an opinion, characteristic or situation very clear without the use of words
conundrums:/kəˈnʌn.drəm/ a problem that is difficult to deal with
exorbitant rents : /ɪɡˈzɔː.bɪ.tənt/ Exorbitant prices and demands, etc. are much too large
An advanced economy like Hong Kong has no place for such shabby housing. That subdivided units have mushroomed into a sizeable slice of the housing market is a real shame. The proliferation of such accommodation, many of which are illegal and unsafe, is indeed a time bomb waiting to explode. They are as much an affront to human dignity as they are safety hazards.
shabby/ˈʃæb.i/ looking old and in bad condition because of being used for a long time or not being cared for:
proliferation/prəˈlɪf.ər.eɪt/ to increase a lot and suddenly in number
Speaking at a town hall session in August 2013, Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying said the plight of those living in subdivided units sometimes kept him up at nights. It is regrettable that the issue was not pursued further when the government finalised the housing strategy for the next 10 years.
plight:/plaɪt/ an unpleasant condition, especially a serious, sad, or difficult one:
Admittedly, the prevalence of subdivided units makes an immediate ban unrealistic. But the community still expects a clear commitment from the government to phase out such housing in the long term. We trust Leung is not sweeping the issue under the carpet. Doing nothing is not an option.
2015年1月10日星期六
Retirement is for wimps
http://www.scmp.com/magazines/money/article/1039684/retirement-wimps
wimps /wɪmp/( person who is not strong, brave, or confident)
wimps /wɪmp/( person who is not strong, brave, or confident)
For example:
The challenges of life is not for wimps.
When facing a challenge of life, we are just like a wimp.
Japan's lower house passed legislation this month that would give private sector employees the right to keep working for another five years, up to 65. With the world's longest life expectancy, largest public debt and below-replacement birth rate, curbing spiralling welfare costs by keeping people in jobs longer may help defuse a pension time bomb that threatens to overturn or bankrupt governments in the developed world.
curbing /kɜːb/ to control or limit something that is not wanted
spiralling /ˈspaɪə.rəl/ If costs, prices, etc. spiral, they increase faster and faster
For example:
Japan's lower house passed legislation this month that would give private sector employees the right to keep working for another five years, up to 65. With the world's longest life expectancy, largest public debt and below-replacement birth rate, curbing spiralling welfare costs by keeping people in jobs longer may help defuse a pension time bomb that threatens to overturn or bankrupt governments in the developed world.
curbing /kɜːb/ to control or limit something that is not wanted
spiralling /ˈspaɪə.rəl/ If costs, prices, etc. spiral, they increase faster and faster
For example:
Curbing the rise in price is the main role of the government in this conservative year.
Delaying the retirement age is one way Japan can plug a shortfall in pension provisions, said Martin Schulz, a senior economist at Fujitsu Research Institute in Tokyo. The deficit is a result of benefit miscalculations made in the early 1970s that led to snowballing public debt, he said.
plug /plʌɡ/ to fill a hole with a piece of suitable material
Examples for using the above new vocabularies:
The living costs are spiralling and the poor lives in a poorer condition.
Curbing the spending on the public expenditure is the only for Greece to handle the deficit of the government.
Importing the foreign workers can plug a shortfall in the labors of construction works.
Delaying the retirement age is one way Japan can plug a shortfall in pension provisions, said Martin Schulz, a senior economist at Fujitsu Research Institute in Tokyo. The deficit is a result of benefit miscalculations made in the early 1970s that led to snowballing public debt, he said.
plug /plʌɡ/ to fill a hole with a piece of suitable material
Examples for using the above new vocabularies:
The living costs are spiralling and the poor lives in a poorer condition.
Curbing the spending on the public expenditure is the only for Greece to handle the deficit of the government.
Importing the foreign workers can plug a shortfall in the labors of construction works.
2015年1月8日星期四
Sentiment report
【明報專訊】THE GOVERNMENT has released its "Report on the Recent Community and Political Situation in Hong Kong" (sentiment report), which it has submitted to the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office (HKMAO). Having 158 pages, it is largely a chronicle (a written record of historical events) of what happened in the 79-day Occupy movement. Some momentous events are given such scanty(smaller in amount considered necessary ) treatment in it that one may be worried that a future reader of it may not be able to understand thoroughly what caused and what came of the gigantic mass movement Hong Kong saw after the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) had made its August 31 decision. Because of the prevailing political atmosphere, one may say the government just went through the motions of preparing the report and submitting it to the HKMAO after its fruitless dialogue with the Hong Kong Federation of Students (HKFS). The report is of little political significance.
It is proper for the government to have just gone through the motions. First, it has made good a promise it made the public. Second, it has avoided arousing controversy by refraining(to avoid doing) from doing any analysis or making any comments. Third, it has avoided making things more unfavourable to the second round of constitutional-reform consultation. This is most important because, constitutional reforms remaining acutely controversial, it would do society no good at all for the report to add fuel to the flames.
That said, many find certain statements in the report unsatisfactory. For example, it says in conclusion, "It is the common aspiration of the Central Authorities, the HKSAR Government and the people of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the [Chief Executive] election in 2017 in Hong Kong as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretation and Decisions of the NPCSC." It is not clear from the report whether the "relevant Interpretation and Decisions" include the August 31 decision. If they do, will "common aspiration of the people of Hong Kong" not sound questionable? If few Hong Kong citizens objected to the August 31 decision, the gigantic mass movement would not have taken place.
Furthermore, the report, which is an official chronicle of what happened during the Occupy movement, does not seem to stand the test of strict criteria of history. Certain parts of it seem too crude(simple and not skilfully done or made) to represent the truth.
The government had regard to so many political considerations in preparing the report that it does not meet the "factual record" requirement of history. The mass movement certainly makes an important chapter of the history of Hong Kong. To be responsible to history, the government should commission an independent team of historians to find out what happened in Hong Kong during the movement and make a factual account of it lest important pieces of information should be washed away by the torrent (large amounts/uncontrollable) of time and, as a result, the truth should be blurred(difficult to understand or separate clearly). Furthermore, during its dialogue with the HKFS, the government said not only that it would prepare a sentiment report but also that it would set up a platform on which people from all sectors could explore with it possible post-2017 constitutional arrangements. The pressure generated by the Occupy movement has disappeared, but it is a good idea to create a platform for dealing with constitutional-reform controversies through dialogue. Constructive interactions between the government and the public on the dialogue platform will hopefully bring about positive results. In the second round of consultation, the government should keep the "dialogue platform" option and positively try to carry it out.
明報社評 2015.01.07﹕民情報告政治意義不大 對話平台有助朝野互動
政府公布提交給國務院港澳辦公室的《近期香港社會及政治情况報告》（簡稱民情報告），厚達158頁，檢視其主體報告，主要是流水帳式記錄佔領行動79日以來發生的事態。一些記述顯得避重就輕，令人擔心後來者閱讀報告時，將難以洞悉全國人大常委會8．31決定之後，香港發生大規模群衆運動的來龍去脈。按現時的政治氛圍，這份在政府與學聯對話沒有成果之後提出的報告，已經淪為走過場式的產物，政治意義不大。
政府現在以走過場方式處理民情報告，是恰當做法。首先，履行了政府對市民的承諾；其次，不分析、不評論，可以避免爭拗；第三，不至為今日開展的第二輪政改諮詢，增添負面因素，這是最重要的，因為政改爭議仍然尖銳，民情報告若火上加油，對整體社會絕無好處。
即使如此，不少人對報告一些表述會有意見。例如報告結語指「嚴格按照《基本法》和全國人大常委會的相關解釋及決定，讓香港如期依法落實2017年普選行政長官，是中央、特區政府和香港市民的共同願望」，行文未清晰界定所謂「相關解釋及決定」是否包括8．31決定；若包括在內，則「香港市民的共同願望」的說法，在這裏是否有問題？事實上，若全體香港市民都對「《基本法》全國人大常委會相關解釋及決定」沒有異議，就不會有那麼大規模的抗爭行動了。
另外，民情報告作為記錄佔領行動事態的官方文件，恐怕未能經受嚴格的歷史準則檢驗，部分關鍵之處顯得粗糙，未能反映全面真象。
民情報告有太多政治考慮，不可能滿足歷史如實記錄的要求。這次群衆運動，今後肯定成為本港歷史的重要章節，為了對歷史負責，政府應該委請獨立學者團隊，全面了解和調查整件事，如實記錄和敍述，以免隨着時日冲刷，失去一些重要點滴，使事態模糊而無法保留真象。另外，當日政府與學聯對話時，除了民情報告，還提出了建立多方對話平台機制，讓各方人士與政府共同探討2017年之後的政改安排。如今佔領運動壓力消失，但是對話平台處理政改爭議是好構思，朝野透過對話平台良性互動，有望起到積極作用，政府在第二輪諮詢應該保留對話平台選項，推動並爭取實現。
Glossary
chronicle﹕a record of events in order of occurrence
go through the motions﹕If you go through the motions of doing something, you do it because you have to, not because you really want to.
platform﹕a place, means or opportunity for public expression of opinion
Examples to use the new vocabularies:
the project done by the students are too crude to present in the whole form.
a torrent of tourists from the mainland China crowded shopping areas in Hong Kong.
The truth will be blurred if no other independent parties investigate the events.
I have to refrain from writing any irrelevant ideas to have a better result in the writing exams.
It is proper for the government to have just gone through the motions. First, it has made good a promise it made the public. Second, it has avoided arousing controversy by refraining(to avoid doing) from doing any analysis or making any comments. Third, it has avoided making things more unfavourable to the second round of constitutional-reform consultation. This is most important because, constitutional reforms remaining acutely controversial, it would do society no good at all for the report to add fuel to the flames.
That said, many find certain statements in the report unsatisfactory. For example, it says in conclusion, "It is the common aspiration of the Central Authorities, the HKSAR Government and the people of Hong Kong to implement universal suffrage for the [Chief Executive] election in 2017 in Hong Kong as scheduled and strictly in accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretation and Decisions of the NPCSC." It is not clear from the report whether the "relevant Interpretation and Decisions" include the August 31 decision. If they do, will "common aspiration of the people of Hong Kong" not sound questionable? If few Hong Kong citizens objected to the August 31 decision, the gigantic mass movement would not have taken place.
Furthermore, the report, which is an official chronicle of what happened during the Occupy movement, does not seem to stand the test of strict criteria of history. Certain parts of it seem too crude(simple and not skilfully done or made) to represent the truth.
The government had regard to so many political considerations in preparing the report that it does not meet the "factual record" requirement of history. The mass movement certainly makes an important chapter of the history of Hong Kong. To be responsible to history, the government should commission an independent team of historians to find out what happened in Hong Kong during the movement and make a factual account of it lest important pieces of information should be washed away by the torrent (large amounts/uncontrollable) of time and, as a result, the truth should be blurred(difficult to understand or separate clearly). Furthermore, during its dialogue with the HKFS, the government said not only that it would prepare a sentiment report but also that it would set up a platform on which people from all sectors could explore with it possible post-2017 constitutional arrangements. The pressure generated by the Occupy movement has disappeared, but it is a good idea to create a platform for dealing with constitutional-reform controversies through dialogue. Constructive interactions between the government and the public on the dialogue platform will hopefully bring about positive results. In the second round of consultation, the government should keep the "dialogue platform" option and positively try to carry it out.
明報社評 2015.01.07﹕民情報告政治意義不大 對話平台有助朝野互動
政府公布提交給國務院港澳辦公室的《近期香港社會及政治情况報告》（簡稱民情報告），厚達158頁，檢視其主體報告，主要是流水帳式記錄佔領行動79日以來發生的事態。一些記述顯得避重就輕，令人擔心後來者閱讀報告時，將難以洞悉全國人大常委會8．31決定之後，香港發生大規模群衆運動的來龍去脈。按現時的政治氛圍，這份在政府與學聯對話沒有成果之後提出的報告，已經淪為走過場式的產物，政治意義不大。
政府現在以走過場方式處理民情報告，是恰當做法。首先，履行了政府對市民的承諾；其次，不分析、不評論，可以避免爭拗；第三，不至為今日開展的第二輪政改諮詢，增添負面因素，這是最重要的，因為政改爭議仍然尖銳，民情報告若火上加油，對整體社會絕無好處。
即使如此，不少人對報告一些表述會有意見。例如報告結語指「嚴格按照《基本法》和全國人大常委會的相關解釋及決定，讓香港如期依法落實2017年普選行政長官，是中央、特區政府和香港市民的共同願望」，行文未清晰界定所謂「相關解釋及決定」是否包括8．31決定；若包括在內，則「香港市民的共同願望」的說法，在這裏是否有問題？事實上，若全體香港市民都對「《基本法》全國人大常委會相關解釋及決定」沒有異議，就不會有那麼大規模的抗爭行動了。
另外，民情報告作為記錄佔領行動事態的官方文件，恐怕未能經受嚴格的歷史準則檢驗，部分關鍵之處顯得粗糙，未能反映全面真象。
民情報告有太多政治考慮，不可能滿足歷史如實記錄的要求。這次群衆運動，今後肯定成為本港歷史的重要章節，為了對歷史負責，政府應該委請獨立學者團隊，全面了解和調查整件事，如實記錄和敍述，以免隨着時日冲刷，失去一些重要點滴，使事態模糊而無法保留真象。另外，當日政府與學聯對話時，除了民情報告，還提出了建立多方對話平台機制，讓各方人士與政府共同探討2017年之後的政改安排。如今佔領運動壓力消失，但是對話平台處理政改爭議是好構思，朝野透過對話平台良性互動，有望起到積極作用，政府在第二輪諮詢應該保留對話平台選項，推動並爭取實現。
Glossary
chronicle﹕a record of events in order of occurrence
go through the motions﹕If you go through the motions of doing something, you do it because you have to, not because you really want to.
platform﹕a place, means or opportunity for public expression of opinion
Examples to use the new vocabularies:
the project done by the students are too crude to present in the whole form.
a torrent of tourists from the mainland China crowded shopping areas in Hong Kong.
The truth will be blurred if no other independent parties investigate the events.
I have to refrain from writing any irrelevant ideas to have a better result in the writing exams.
2015年1月7日星期三
Pan-democrats should not boycott public consultation
2015年1月7日
【明報專訊】THE GOVERNMENT is to publish its public sentiment report today (Jan 6), and launch the second round of public consultation on constitutional reform tomorrow (Jan 7). The political temperature, having gone down for a while after the Occupy movement, is again rising to fever pitch(白熱化). The pan-democratic camp has vowed to boycott any consultation based on the August 31 resolution of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, and to veto(否決) the constitutional reform proposal. If they do not change their stance, it will be quite pointless to carry out any further consultation. And if the electoral system remains unchanged, the prospects for further democratic development will get even bleaker(暗淡).
The August 31 resolution is a political reality which at present cannot be transcended(go further). The central government is not budging(change your opinion) from its position even after the more than two-month-long Occupy movement. The public is thus left with only two choices: not to accept the resolution and urge the pan-democratic lawmakers to veto the constitutional reform proposal, or to comply with the resolution and see if by local legislation the electoral system can be made more democratic.
While the pan-democratic lawmakers have long made it clear that they do not accept the August 31 resolution and will veto the reform proposal, the majority of the people think that this is ill-advised. Opinion polls conducted by many organisations before the Occupy movement showed that, while there were those in favour of vetoing the proposed reform and keeping the present electoral system unchanged, there were more who believe that some reform is better than none at all. And after the Occupy movement, there are as many as 60 percent of people who share this belief, an increase of about 10 percent. Although this 60 percent of people cannot be regarded as an overwhelming majority, the pan-democrats should not disregard their wish to vote in the Chief Executive election. It should be noted that, if in the second round of consultation the government puts forward some concrete proposals that would make the electoral system more democratic and inject some choice and competition into the Chief Executive election, the pan-democrats may incur public censure(strong criticism) if they boycott the public consultation and veto the reform proposal.
Over the past few months, some academics and political moderates have come up with proposals such as having the nominating committee vote on lists of candidates rather than on individual candidates, and allowing the public to render(to cause someone or something to be in a particular state) the Chief Executive election invalid by casting(to vote) blank votes. As these proposals do not deviate from the framework set by the August 31 resolution, they should be explored further. What is more, the operation of the nominating committee, a most important feature of the August 31 resolution, has so far been little discussed. If the committee's operation can be so devised( invent a plan,) as to make the nomination procedure more transparent, a pan-democrat or candidate supported by the pan-democrats may still be nominated to stand for election.
Therefore the pan-democrats should not be so hasty in declaring that they will boycott the consultation and veto the reform proposal. It should be noted that, if election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is not implemented in 2017, election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage will not be implemented in 2020. Clearly, to promote democracy, there is something better the pan-democrats can do. It is irresponsible of them to cling to ideals they can never hope to achieve by chanting slogans(to repeat or sing a word or phrase continuously). They must not abstain(to not do something) from the electoral reform exercise, and must act realistically. Participating in the second round of public consultation is the first step they should take.
明報社評 2015.01.06﹕泛民應該落場踢波 勿抵制第二輪諮詢
政府今日公布民情報告，明日開展政改第二輪諮詢，政治熱度隨着佔領運動清場而沉寂一段時間後，又再熱熾起來。泛民陣營聲言抵制全國人大常委會8．31決定的諮詢，並要否決有關的政改方案；若泛民不改變立場，那諮詢還有什麼意義？若政制原地踏步，民主進程將更悲觀。
8．31決定是政治現實，現階段無法踰越，即使發生了兩個多月佔領行動，未見中央的原則立場有任何鬆動。在這個情况下，市民只有兩個選擇：一是絕對不接受8．31決定，要求泛民議員否決政府據之提出來的方案；另一個則是按8．31決定，在本地立法部分能否達至較高民主程度的普選安排。
泛民議員雖然早已聲言不接受8．31決定並會否決方案，但是大多數市民有不同想法。佔領運動爆發之前，多方民意調查顯示：認為應該「袋住先」的市民，往往多過認為應該否決方案、寧願政制原地踏步的市民。佔領運動之後，有更多市民同意袋住先（達60%以上），較之前多了約10個百分點。六成市民認同袋住先，雖然不能解讀為壓倒性差距，但是多數市民期望投票選舉特首的意願，則是泛民不宜忽視的，特別是第二輪諮詢，若政府提出討論具體安排增加民主成分，達至有一定程度競爭和選擇的特首普選，屆時泛民若抵制討論和否決方案，會否引發市民反彈，值得注意。
過去幾個月以至近期，學者與中間溫和力量提出的綑綁名單提名、白票守尾門等方案，由於並未偏離8．31決定的框架，因此應該深化討論下去；至於提名委員會的運作，過去較少討論。其實，提委會在8．31決定的重要性，不言而喻。在提委會運作設計方面，若能做到提名程序透明化，或許仍有機會讓泛民成員或泛民支持的人士成為特首候選人。
可以說，現在泛民揚言抵制諮詢、否決方案，未免太早了！還有，若2017年未能落實特首普選，2020年立法會也未能普選產生全部議席。因此，採取哪一種取態才算爭取民主、推動民主向前發展？泛民停留在理念口號並非負責任做法，應該落場踢波，實際踐行。參與第二輪諮詢，只是第一步。
Glossary
bleak﹕without anything to make you feel cheerful or hopeful
ill-advised﹕not sensible, wise, or prudent
censure﹕the act of expressing strong disapproval and criticism
The August 31 resolution is a political reality which at present cannot be transcended(go further). The central government is not budging(change your opinion) from its position even after the more than two-month-long Occupy movement. The public is thus left with only two choices: not to accept the resolution and urge the pan-democratic lawmakers to veto the constitutional reform proposal, or to comply with the resolution and see if by local legislation the electoral system can be made more democratic.
While the pan-democratic lawmakers have long made it clear that they do not accept the August 31 resolution and will veto the reform proposal, the majority of the people think that this is ill-advised. Opinion polls conducted by many organisations before the Occupy movement showed that, while there were those in favour of vetoing the proposed reform and keeping the present electoral system unchanged, there were more who believe that some reform is better than none at all. And after the Occupy movement, there are as many as 60 percent of people who share this belief, an increase of about 10 percent. Although this 60 percent of people cannot be regarded as an overwhelming majority, the pan-democrats should not disregard their wish to vote in the Chief Executive election. It should be noted that, if in the second round of consultation the government puts forward some concrete proposals that would make the electoral system more democratic and inject some choice and competition into the Chief Executive election, the pan-democrats may incur public censure(strong criticism) if they boycott the public consultation and veto the reform proposal.
Over the past few months, some academics and political moderates have come up with proposals such as having the nominating committee vote on lists of candidates rather than on individual candidates, and allowing the public to render(to cause someone or something to be in a particular state) the Chief Executive election invalid by casting(to vote) blank votes. As these proposals do not deviate from the framework set by the August 31 resolution, they should be explored further. What is more, the operation of the nominating committee, a most important feature of the August 31 resolution, has so far been little discussed. If the committee's operation can be so devised( invent a plan,) as to make the nomination procedure more transparent, a pan-democrat or candidate supported by the pan-democrats may still be nominated to stand for election.
Therefore the pan-democrats should not be so hasty in declaring that they will boycott the consultation and veto the reform proposal. It should be noted that, if election of the Chief Executive by universal suffrage is not implemented in 2017, election of all members of the Legislative Council by universal suffrage will not be implemented in 2020. Clearly, to promote democracy, there is something better the pan-democrats can do. It is irresponsible of them to cling to ideals they can never hope to achieve by chanting slogans(to repeat or sing a word or phrase continuously). They must not abstain(to not do something) from the electoral reform exercise, and must act realistically. Participating in the second round of public consultation is the first step they should take.
明報社評 2015.01.06﹕泛民應該落場踢波 勿抵制第二輪諮詢
政府今日公布民情報告，明日開展政改第二輪諮詢，政治熱度隨着佔領運動清場而沉寂一段時間後，又再熱熾起來。泛民陣營聲言抵制全國人大常委會8．31決定的諮詢，並要否決有關的政改方案；若泛民不改變立場，那諮詢還有什麼意義？若政制原地踏步，民主進程將更悲觀。
8．31決定是政治現實，現階段無法踰越，即使發生了兩個多月佔領行動，未見中央的原則立場有任何鬆動。在這個情况下，市民只有兩個選擇：一是絕對不接受8．31決定，要求泛民議員否決政府據之提出來的方案；另一個則是按8．31決定，在本地立法部分能否達至較高民主程度的普選安排。
泛民議員雖然早已聲言不接受8．31決定並會否決方案，但是大多數市民有不同想法。佔領運動爆發之前，多方民意調查顯示：認為應該「袋住先」的市民，往往多過認為應該否決方案、寧願政制原地踏步的市民。佔領運動之後，有更多市民同意袋住先（達60%以上），較之前多了約10個百分點。六成市民認同袋住先，雖然不能解讀為壓倒性差距，但是多數市民期望投票選舉特首的意願，則是泛民不宜忽視的，特別是第二輪諮詢，若政府提出討論具體安排增加民主成分，達至有一定程度競爭和選擇的特首普選，屆時泛民若抵制討論和否決方案，會否引發市民反彈，值得注意。
過去幾個月以至近期，學者與中間溫和力量提出的綑綁名單提名、白票守尾門等方案，由於並未偏離8．31決定的框架，因此應該深化討論下去；至於提名委員會的運作，過去較少討論。其實，提委會在8．31決定的重要性，不言而喻。在提委會運作設計方面，若能做到提名程序透明化，或許仍有機會讓泛民成員或泛民支持的人士成為特首候選人。
可以說，現在泛民揚言抵制諮詢、否決方案，未免太早了！還有，若2017年未能落實特首普選，2020年立法會也未能普選產生全部議席。因此，採取哪一種取態才算爭取民主、推動民主向前發展？泛民停留在理念口號並非負責任做法，應該落場踢波，實際踐行。參與第二輪諮詢，只是第一步。
Glossary
bleak﹕without anything to make you feel cheerful or hopeful
ill-advised﹕not sensible, wise, or prudent
censure﹕the act of expressing strong disapproval and criticism
2015年1月6日星期二
The two ways of supervison
2015年1月6日
【明報專訊】IT may take long to complete a project. When it is under way, unforeseeable things may happen - unfavourable weather or man-made untoward(反常) occurrences. However, allowances may be made for such factors when it is on the drawing board. Additional funding will be needed if an unfavourable situation arises. It is the watchdog's duty to make sure that, though there is a cost overrun, neither money nor time will be wasted.
According to a story included in this issue of Ming Pao, building works are supervised differently from infrastructure projects and civil engineering works. It is hard to imagine why government departments (which attach great importance to systematisation) have adopted a system so incomprehensible to citizens. Building works are supervised by independent quantity surveyors appointed by the government. In the case of an infrastructure project or civil engineering works, it is an engineering consultancy that is responsible for its design, the supervision of its progress and its cost control. When claims arise because of design changes, the possibility of a conflict of roles occurring cannot be ruled out. The consultancy may then be under suspicion of "self-approval".
The government's explanation is that it is necessary to have independent surveyors supervise building works because they, involving the use of many kinds of materials, are very complicated, while civil engineering works may be supervised by the engineers in charge of them because they are relatively simple. It has pointed out that this is a practice of long standing among architects, surveyors and engineers, adding that so far no causal links have been established between this practice and cost overruns.
One may say the explanation falls short of the expectations society has of the government. In a society where the supervision of the authorities is considered of great importance, fairness, like justice, matters very much. The more transparent such measures are, the better it will be. Controversy has arisen because the government's explanation that the practice has long been in place does not dispel doubts(驅散疑慮). Will it be possible to minimise mistakes in supervision and thereby save more public money if even infrastructure projects and civil engineering works are supervised by independent surveyors? It must be understood that fairness is just like justice, which must not only be done but also be seen to be done. After all(more important), in a mature society, the government can, by introducing independent supervision and increasing transparency, minimise costs that may arise from the lack of such mechanisms, including the public's doubts and attendant negative factors.
There are two totally different systems for supervising government projects because government departments act on their own. The government must rectify this "two-system" situation instead of hiding behind the shield of "common practice". Evidently, the government must take these questions seriously, for the public may doubt that the cost overrun of a project (which may easily amount to $10 billion) presents "good value for money" and suspect that the taxpayer is often fleeced(被宰). Unless it handles this issue satisfactorily, the government, whose popularity cannot be called very high, will have difficulty coping with another blow at its credibility.
明報社評 2015.01.05﹕一工兩制大幅超支 政出多門易生弊端
一項工程的建築過程漫長，其間或會出現不可預計的因素，例如大自然帶來的天氣變幻，或是當中發生事前難以預視的人為事故；不過，這都可以在之前的規劃當中預留空間以作補足。當然，發生不能預見的情况後就需追加支出。如何做到就算要面對超支而不至於枉花金錢及時間，這是監管方面的責任。
本報今天報道的政府工程「一工兩制」，樓宇工程（Building Works）的監察與基建或土木工程（Civil Engineering Works）的監察竟是如此迥異，很難想像講究制度化的政府部門會出現這種不能令巿民理解的制度。樓宇工程的監察是政府委任獨立的工料測量師，直接向政府負責；基建或土木工程方面，由設計、監察進度以及成本控制，全部由一間工程顧問公司負責，一旦涉及改動設計等申索，角色衝突可能性不能排除，這麼一來，就可能變成有「自己批自己」之嫌。
政府方面的說法是樓宇工程與基建或土木工程繁瑣程度迥異，前者有涉及多種工料項目，後者相對簡單，因此需要的監察做法則是前者需要獨立測量師，後者則是工程師兼任便可，並指出這種分工的做法，在建築師、測量師以及工程師界別「沿用已久」，現在階段尚未有確立這種做法與超支的關係。
這一種解說可謂脫離了當前社會對政府施政的期許，因為在一個重視監察權力的社會，公平公正極為重要，這方面的透明度更是愈高愈好。如今的爭論點在於政府以「沿用已久」作為解釋，卻未能令到質疑的一方信服，即倘若連基建或土木工程都採用獨立測量師監督，是否可以把在監督過程中出現的錯誤減到最少，從而節省更多的公帑支出。須知道，正如公義一樣，公平公正也必須達至，而且要令人看到已經達至（must also be seen to be done）。况且，增加獨立監察及透明度，如果在一個成熟的社會推行，更可以減少因為欠缺這種機制下的其他成本，包括面對社會的質疑及因此滋生的其他負面因素。
既然是政府所管轄的工程項目，卻因為政出多門而出現兩種截然不同的監察制度，一工兩制有着改正的需要，而不是動輒以慣常做法去做擋箭牌。特區政府看來應認真面對這些問題，因為動輒十億百億的超支是否「物有所值」，巿民會否成為冤大頭，都可能成為公眾的質疑。若處理欠善，本來民望就不是很高的政府，難以再受另一次公信力的衝擊。
Glossary
untoward﹕unusual and unexpected, and usually unpleasant
on the drawing board﹕being prepared or considered
fleece﹕A person who is fleeced is made to pay a lot of money.
According to a story included in this issue of Ming Pao, building works are supervised differently from infrastructure projects and civil engineering works. It is hard to imagine why government departments (which attach great importance to systematisation) have adopted a system so incomprehensible to citizens. Building works are supervised by independent quantity surveyors appointed by the government. In the case of an infrastructure project or civil engineering works, it is an engineering consultancy that is responsible for its design, the supervision of its progress and its cost control. When claims arise because of design changes, the possibility of a conflict of roles occurring cannot be ruled out. The consultancy may then be under suspicion of "self-approval".
The government's explanation is that it is necessary to have independent surveyors supervise building works because they, involving the use of many kinds of materials, are very complicated, while civil engineering works may be supervised by the engineers in charge of them because they are relatively simple. It has pointed out that this is a practice of long standing among architects, surveyors and engineers, adding that so far no causal links have been established between this practice and cost overruns.
One may say the explanation falls short of the expectations society has of the government. In a society where the supervision of the authorities is considered of great importance, fairness, like justice, matters very much. The more transparent such measures are, the better it will be. Controversy has arisen because the government's explanation that the practice has long been in place does not dispel doubts(驅散疑慮). Will it be possible to minimise mistakes in supervision and thereby save more public money if even infrastructure projects and civil engineering works are supervised by independent surveyors? It must be understood that fairness is just like justice, which must not only be done but also be seen to be done. After all(more important), in a mature society, the government can, by introducing independent supervision and increasing transparency, minimise costs that may arise from the lack of such mechanisms, including the public's doubts and attendant negative factors.
There are two totally different systems for supervising government projects because government departments act on their own. The government must rectify this "two-system" situation instead of hiding behind the shield of "common practice". Evidently, the government must take these questions seriously, for the public may doubt that the cost overrun of a project (which may easily amount to $10 billion) presents "good value for money" and suspect that the taxpayer is often fleeced(被宰). Unless it handles this issue satisfactorily, the government, whose popularity cannot be called very high, will have difficulty coping with another blow at its credibility.
明報社評 2015.01.05﹕一工兩制大幅超支 政出多門易生弊端
一項工程的建築過程漫長，其間或會出現不可預計的因素，例如大自然帶來的天氣變幻，或是當中發生事前難以預視的人為事故；不過，這都可以在之前的規劃當中預留空間以作補足。當然，發生不能預見的情况後就需追加支出。如何做到就算要面對超支而不至於枉花金錢及時間，這是監管方面的責任。
本報今天報道的政府工程「一工兩制」，樓宇工程（Building Works）的監察與基建或土木工程（Civil Engineering Works）的監察竟是如此迥異，很難想像講究制度化的政府部門會出現這種不能令巿民理解的制度。樓宇工程的監察是政府委任獨立的工料測量師，直接向政府負責；基建或土木工程方面，由設計、監察進度以及成本控制，全部由一間工程顧問公司負責，一旦涉及改動設計等申索，角色衝突可能性不能排除，這麼一來，就可能變成有「自己批自己」之嫌。
政府方面的說法是樓宇工程與基建或土木工程繁瑣程度迥異，前者有涉及多種工料項目，後者相對簡單，因此需要的監察做法則是前者需要獨立測量師，後者則是工程師兼任便可，並指出這種分工的做法，在建築師、測量師以及工程師界別「沿用已久」，現在階段尚未有確立這種做法與超支的關係。
這一種解說可謂脫離了當前社會對政府施政的期許，因為在一個重視監察權力的社會，公平公正極為重要，這方面的透明度更是愈高愈好。如今的爭論點在於政府以「沿用已久」作為解釋，卻未能令到質疑的一方信服，即倘若連基建或土木工程都採用獨立測量師監督，是否可以把在監督過程中出現的錯誤減到最少，從而節省更多的公帑支出。須知道，正如公義一樣，公平公正也必須達至，而且要令人看到已經達至（must also be seen to be done）。况且，增加獨立監察及透明度，如果在一個成熟的社會推行，更可以減少因為欠缺這種機制下的其他成本，包括面對社會的質疑及因此滋生的其他負面因素。
既然是政府所管轄的工程項目，卻因為政出多門而出現兩種截然不同的監察制度，一工兩制有着改正的需要，而不是動輒以慣常做法去做擋箭牌。特區政府看來應認真面對這些問題，因為動輒十億百億的超支是否「物有所值」，巿民會否成為冤大頭，都可能成為公眾的質疑。若處理欠善，本來民望就不是很高的政府，難以再受另一次公信力的衝擊。
Glossary
untoward﹕unusual and unexpected, and usually unpleasant
on the drawing board﹕being prepared or considered
fleece﹕A person who is fleeced is made to pay a lot of money.
2015年1月5日星期一
can or could
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/verbs/modal-verbs/can-or-could
We use could as the past tense of can:
We use could to show that something is possible in the future, but not certain:
If we don’t hurry we could be late. (=Perhaps/Maybe we will be late)
We use could have to show that something is/was possible now or at some time in the past:
We use could to talk about past time:
could is more formal and polite than can:
We use can to give permission:
Possibility
We use the modal can to make general statements about what is possible:
It can be very cold in winter. (= It is sometimes very cold in winter)You can easily lose your way in the dark. (= People often lose their way in the dark)
We use could as the past tense of can:
It could be very cold in winter. (=Sometimes it was very cold in winter.)
You could lose your way in the dark. (=People often lost their way in the dark)
You could lose your way in the dark. (=People often lost their way in the dark)
We use could to show that something is possible in the future, but not certain:
If we don’t hurry we could be late. (=Perhaps/Maybe we will be late)
We use could have to show that something is/was possible now or at some time in the past:
It’s ten o’clock. They could have arrived now.
They could have arrived hours ago.
They could have arrived hours ago.
Impossibility:
We use the negative can’t or cannot to show that something is impossible:
That can’t be true.
You cannot be serious.
We use couldn’t/could not to talk about the past:You cannot be serious.
We knew it could not be true.
He was obviously joking. He could not be serious.
He was obviously joking. He could not be serious.
Ability:
We use can to talk about someone’s skill or general abilities:
She can speak several languages.
He can swim like a fish.
They can’t dance very well.
We use can to talk about the ability to do something at a given time in the present or future:He can swim like a fish.
They can’t dance very well.
You can make a lot of money if you are lucky.
Help. I can’t breathe.
They can run but they can’t hide.
Help. I can’t breathe.
They can run but they can’t hide.
We use could to talk about past time:
She could speak several languages.
They couldn’t dance very well.
They couldn’t dance very well.
Permission:
We use can to ask for permission to do something:
Can I ask a question, please?
Can we go home now?
Can we go home now?
could is more formal and polite than can:
Could I ask a question please?
Could we go home now?
Could we go home now?
We use can to give permission:
You can go home now if you like.
You can borrow my pen if you like.
You can borrow my pen if you like.
We use can to say that someone has permission to do something:
We can go out whenever we want.
Students can travel free.
Students can travel free.
Instructions and requests:
We use could you and as a polite way of telling or asking someone to do something:
Could you take a message please?
Could I have my bill please?
can is less polite:Could I have my bill please?
Can you take a message please?
Offers and invitations:
We use can I … to make offers:
Can I help you?
Can I do that for you?
We sometimes say I can ... or I could ... to make an offer:Can I do that for you?
I can do that for you if you like.
I can give you a lift to the station
I can give you a lift to the station
THE SECOND ROUND of consultation on constitutional reform
2015年1月5日
【明報專訊】THE SECOND ROUND of consultation on constitutional reform is about to begin. However, in the wake of the Occupy movement, which lasted over two months, many are pessimistic about electing the Chief Executive (CE) by universal suffrage in 2017.
The storm over constitutional reform started brewing醞釀 in early 2013, when society began to discuss the issue. It has now brought turbulence to our city. In retrospect(仔細檢視), the political storm actually arose from interactions between the radicals and the moderates. It is neither advisable nor proper for the government to speculate how the various camps will fare relative to one another. It should bear two things in mind regarding the second round of consultation: (1) that it is its bounden(義不容辭)duty to put forward a constitutional reform proposal and see that it will go through the Legislative Council so that the CE will be elected by universal suffrage; and (2) that it has a duty to guide citizens through the discussion of maximising democracy within the framework of the August 31 decision. As long as it has done its part, the government will not be to blame even if its constitutional reform proposal is rejected.
in retrospect /ˈret.rəʊ.spekt/ thinking now about something in the past
Then comes the question of what should be consulted about. Commenting on arrangements for electing the CE by universal suffrage, Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong, raised the "double approval" idea, saying they must meet with the approval of both the central government and the Hong Kong people. No doubt the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31 decision meets with the approval of the central government. The question that remains is what arrangements will meet with the approval of the Hong Kong people. It follows that Hong Kong people's approval can be won if proper arrangements are made regarding the composition and operation of the nominating committee and the functions of citizens' votes.The August 31 decision may not bring about the most democratic possible method of electing the CE by universal suffrage. However, through in-depth discussion of the matter, it is still possible to have a second-best method that allows a choice and a high level of competition. The pan-democrats' position is at odds(落差) with the findings of many surveys, which show citizens who think the August 31 framework should be adopted outnumber those who think it should be rejected. The government may, in the second round of consultation, suggests ways of increasing democracy and explores the possibility of introducing an electoral method by which pro-establishment and pro-democracy politicians are "bundled" together or one by which citizens can "keep the last gate". If the government does so but the pan-democrats insist on boycotting the consultation and rejecting the government's constitutional reform proposal, they cannot but face the question of citizens' impression of them.
There are other questions the pan-democrats have to consider. Should a proposal be rejected wholesale(全盤) just because it does not directly lead to their goal? If the August 31 decision is adopted, the number of the enfranchised(選舉權) will increase from 1,200 to over 5 million. Will such a sharp increase in the number of voters not lead to a qualitative change? Who can determine the outcome of such an election? Furthermore, will the pan-democrats fare better if they, instead of playing the role of street protesters, play the political game permissible under the August 31 decision, become part of the establishment, gain power and actually take part in the administration of the city? Will they then be better able to promote the cause of democracy? These are questions the pan-democrats ought to consider.
明報社評2015.01.02﹕政府推政改勿放軟手腳 泛民應再思考原則立場
政改第二輪諮詢即將展開，可是歷經兩個多月的佔領行動，現有較多人對2017年落實特首普選不表樂觀。
今次政改，由2013年初醞釀討論到現在的風風雨雨，仔細檢視一下，會發現實際上是激進與溫和力量相互激盪。政府對各個陣營的力量消長，不宜也不應該猜測。就第二輪諮詢，政府須認識清楚兩點：一是政府義不容辭的責任，是提出政改方案，爭取立法會通過，落實特首普選；二是政府有責任在8‧31決定的框架，引導市民討論最大程度民主安排，爭取在社會上取得最大共識。只要政府做好這兩點，善盡責任，屆時政制方案被否決，責不在政府。
至於第二點則是諮詢什麼的問題。就普選安排，中聯辦主任張曉明說過要「雙認可」，就是中央認可和港人認可；全國人大常委會8‧31的決定肯定得到中央認可，現在剩下來的問題，就是普選安排要獲得港人認可。按這樣的邏輯理路，提委會的組成、運作和港人選票作用等環節，透過恰當安排，就有望和可能達至港人認可。
8‧31決定就普選特首安排，或許未能達至一個民主程度最高的選舉，不過若肯深入探討，則次佳方案，還有望達至程度較高的有競爭和有選擇的普選安排。泛民現在的取態，與民調結果存在落差。衆多民調數字顯示，市民對8‧31決定框架認為應該「袋住先」，都高過否決的比率；若政府在第二輪諮詢是按8‧31框架提出增加民主成分、探討綑綁名單制甚或守尾門等可能性，可是泛民陣營仍然堅持杯葛和否決方案，那麼他們就不能忽視市民的觀感。
泛民還要檢視一些問題，包括：未能一步到位，是否就要全盤推翻？即使按8‧31決定普選特首，合資格選民由1200人增至500多萬，選民的海量增幅，這量變會否帶來質變？屆時的選舉結果，誰可以控制？還有，泛民參與8‧31決定的政治遊戲，進入體制分享權力，具體實質參與管治，較之長期在體制外玩街頭抗爭，哪一方面更有利於泛民以至民主運動的發展？如此種種，都是泛民陣營需要思考的問題。
■Glossary
bounden﹕a responsibility that cannot be ignored
be to blame﹕be responsible for something bad
wholesale﹕completely
Example written:
In retrospect, I should take the major of Accounting instead of the major of Economics as with the accounting degree, I can have a wider career path.
The storm over the education reform started brewing after 2000.
It brought turbulence to our teenagers if no other methods are used.
in the wake of advancement in technology, we can download the music everywhere without any curbs.
The storm over constitutional reform started brewing醞釀 in early 2013, when society began to discuss the issue. It has now brought turbulence to our city. In retrospect(仔細檢視), the political storm actually arose from interactions between the radicals and the moderates. It is neither advisable nor proper for the government to speculate how the various camps will fare relative to one another. It should bear two things in mind regarding the second round of consultation: (1) that it is its bounden(義不容辭)duty to put forward a constitutional reform proposal and see that it will go through the Legislative Council so that the CE will be elected by universal suffrage; and (2) that it has a duty to guide citizens through the discussion of maximising democracy within the framework of the August 31 decision. As long as it has done its part, the government will not be to blame even if its constitutional reform proposal is rejected.
in retrospect /ˈret.rəʊ.spekt/ thinking now about something in the past
Then comes the question of what should be consulted about. Commenting on arrangements for electing the CE by universal suffrage, Zhang Xiaoming, director of the central government's liaison office in Hong Kong, raised the "double approval" idea, saying they must meet with the approval of both the central government and the Hong Kong people. No doubt the National People's Congress Standing Committee's August 31 decision meets with the approval of the central government. The question that remains is what arrangements will meet with the approval of the Hong Kong people. It follows that Hong Kong people's approval can be won if proper arrangements are made regarding the composition and operation of the nominating committee and the functions of citizens' votes.The August 31 decision may not bring about the most democratic possible method of electing the CE by universal suffrage. However, through in-depth discussion of the matter, it is still possible to have a second-best method that allows a choice and a high level of competition. The pan-democrats' position is at odds(落差) with the findings of many surveys, which show citizens who think the August 31 framework should be adopted outnumber those who think it should be rejected. The government may, in the second round of consultation, suggests ways of increasing democracy and explores the possibility of introducing an electoral method by which pro-establishment and pro-democracy politicians are "bundled" together or one by which citizens can "keep the last gate". If the government does so but the pan-democrats insist on boycotting the consultation and rejecting the government's constitutional reform proposal, they cannot but face the question of citizens' impression of them.
There are other questions the pan-democrats have to consider. Should a proposal be rejected wholesale(全盤) just because it does not directly lead to their goal? If the August 31 decision is adopted, the number of the enfranchised(選舉權) will increase from 1,200 to over 5 million. Will such a sharp increase in the number of voters not lead to a qualitative change? Who can determine the outcome of such an election? Furthermore, will the pan-democrats fare better if they, instead of playing the role of street protesters, play the political game permissible under the August 31 decision, become part of the establishment, gain power and actually take part in the administration of the city? Will they then be better able to promote the cause of democracy? These are questions the pan-democrats ought to consider.
明報社評2015.01.02﹕政府推政改勿放軟手腳 泛民應再思考原則立場
政改第二輪諮詢即將展開，可是歷經兩個多月的佔領行動，現有較多人對2017年落實特首普選不表樂觀。
今次政改，由2013年初醞釀討論到現在的風風雨雨，仔細檢視一下，會發現實際上是激進與溫和力量相互激盪。政府對各個陣營的力量消長，不宜也不應該猜測。就第二輪諮詢，政府須認識清楚兩點：一是政府義不容辭的責任，是提出政改方案，爭取立法會通過，落實特首普選；二是政府有責任在8‧31決定的框架，引導市民討論最大程度民主安排，爭取在社會上取得最大共識。只要政府做好這兩點，善盡責任，屆時政制方案被否決，責不在政府。
至於第二點則是諮詢什麼的問題。就普選安排，中聯辦主任張曉明說過要「雙認可」，就是中央認可和港人認可；全國人大常委會8‧31的決定肯定得到中央認可，現在剩下來的問題，就是普選安排要獲得港人認可。按這樣的邏輯理路，提委會的組成、運作和港人選票作用等環節，透過恰當安排，就有望和可能達至港人認可。
8‧31決定就普選特首安排，或許未能達至一個民主程度最高的選舉，不過若肯深入探討，則次佳方案，還有望達至程度較高的有競爭和有選擇的普選安排。泛民現在的取態，與民調結果存在落差。衆多民調數字顯示，市民對8‧31決定框架認為應該「袋住先」，都高過否決的比率；若政府在第二輪諮詢是按8‧31框架提出增加民主成分、探討綑綁名單制甚或守尾門等可能性，可是泛民陣營仍然堅持杯葛和否決方案，那麼他們就不能忽視市民的觀感。
泛民還要檢視一些問題，包括：未能一步到位，是否就要全盤推翻？即使按8‧31決定普選特首，合資格選民由1200人增至500多萬，選民的海量增幅，這量變會否帶來質變？屆時的選舉結果，誰可以控制？還有，泛民參與8‧31決定的政治遊戲，進入體制分享權力，具體實質參與管治，較之長期在體制外玩街頭抗爭，哪一方面更有利於泛民以至民主運動的發展？如此種種，都是泛民陣營需要思考的問題。
■Glossary
bounden﹕a responsibility that cannot be ignored
be to blame﹕be responsible for something bad
wholesale﹕completely
Example written:
In retrospect, I should take the major of Accounting instead of the major of Economics as with the accounting degree, I can have a wider career path.
The storm over the education reform started brewing after 2000.
It brought turbulence to our teenagers if no other methods are used.
in the wake of advancement in technology, we can download the music everywhere without any curbs.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)