「我離港前到過一間精神科醫院。當時有位病人禮貌地問,一個以作為世上最悠久民主政體而自傲的國家,如何能夠將此地交給一個政治制度非常不同的國家,且既沒諮詢當地公民,又沒給予他們民主的前景,好讓他們捍衞自己的將來。一個隨行同事說,奇怪,香港提出最理智問題的人,竟在精神科醫院。」彭定康 金融時報

“During a visit to a mental hospital before I left Hong Kong, a patient politely asked me how a country that prided itself on being the oldest democracy in the world had come to be handing over his city to another country with a very different system of government, without either consulting the citizens or giving them the prospect of democracy to safeguard their future. Strange, said one of my aides, that the man with the sanest question in Hong Kong is in a mental hospital.”Chris Patten Financial Times

Non Chinese literate friends, please simply switch to English Version provided by LOUSY Google Translation

Please participate in the unregistered demography survey of visitors at the right hand side bar. You are: ?

敬請參與在右下方的不記名訪客分佈調查問卷,你是: ?

Sunday, August 07, 2011



香港明報每個週六,都有外地評論摘要,為了解翻譯出來的中文稿子,與原來的英文原本文章有何差異,我通常會在網上搜尋原文閱讀。 以前很也曾經多次,把兩篇中英兩文一起轉載,方便網友參考,當然也方便自己以後查閱。



高鐵殘骸被埋 問責也被埋(WSJ:China's Wreckage Under Wraps)








【Wall Street Journal】China's Wreckage Under Wraps
Without accountability, each tragedy sparks greater public anger.

Modern China is no stranger to natural and industrial disasters. Yet the July 23 high-speed train crash that left 40 people dead and another 191 injured—according to the official tally—could become a different kind of event.

Chinese journalists and ordinary citizens are resisting government censorship and pressing for more information about the safety of a rail system the government has touted as the most advanced in the world.

What remains to be seen is whether the outrage the crash has provoked will force the regime to refashion its standard procedures for dealing with embarrassing—and revealing—events.

On Friday the government decided to curtail domestic media coverage of the accident after a week of sharp editorials asking whether official neglect cost the trains' passengers their lives. At a press conference with the railways ministry, journalists grilled the ministry's cowed-looking spokesman.

"When a country is so corrupt that one lightning strike can cause a train crash . . . none of us is immune," one person wrote on Sina Weibo, the country's most popular microblogging service. "China today is a train rushing through a lightning storm . . . we are all passengers."

This kind of open criticism of the government's failures raises expectations that China is developing a watchdog media. If only that were true. The regime has learned how to allow the public to vent and then prevent the follow-up reporting that would bring true accountability.

When a magnitude-7.9 earthquake ravaged Sichuan province in May 2008, reporters noted immediately that schoolhouses had been particularly hard-hit. Several newspapers published pointed stories asking whether corruption and inadequate building standards were responsible for the high number of school-age victims. Yet by mid-June of that year reporters from the commercial media were being recalled from the scene.

Likewise when toxic milk powder sickened thousands of infants in 2008, the government rushed its version of events out to the public in order to pre-empt those who would dig deeper.

The media were not silenced; rather they were forced to hew rigidly to the official line that contamination was under control and recalls were limited. Activist Zhao Lianhai, who tried to expose the cover-up and demanded greater compensation for the families, was threatened and then jailed.

After intense public pressure the Chinese government last week declared it would work to reform the rail system. When Premier Wen Jiabao visited the crash site last Thursday, he promised a "fair and transparent investigation." But now that the state has pressed its heavy hand, any reforms will be undertaken outside of the public gaze.

For now, too many questions about last month's crash remain unanswered. Reporters who arrived on the scene the day after the crash found crews busy burying the wrecked carriages in the mud, as if to conceal the evidence.

Rescue workers seemed more interested in restoring rail service than in recovering wounded passengers. The official death toll was suspiciously volatile. Many suspect that a cover-up was underway from the start.

Chinese media watchers like Qian Gang, who writes on the previous page, have dubbed the government's more sophisticated policies to control the media "Control 2.0." While this regime may maintain stability in the short term, it allows the problems that cause public distrust to fester.

Mothers still flock anxiously to Hong Kong to buy foreign milk powder for their infants, and ticket sales for the high-speed trains have collapsed. As each incident requires a bigger venting of anger before it can be contained, the day may be approaching when the government is unable to put the lid back on and deny the Chinese people's demands for answers.


WSJ 顯示這文是 Review and Outlook 是沒有處名的文章,也不是 Editorial 社評,我只可以理解成是 WSJ 華爾街日報 內部自己人寫的或是約稿,因為沒有處名,文責看來似是由 WSJ 肩負吧。

上文不是翻譯外電新聞報導的 FACTS 實況,而是翻譯轉載華爾街日報的八月三日的評論 REVIEW and OUTLOOK。不過原來明報已經做了翻譯後的“去蕪存菁”,摘要後才刊登出來,公開予讀者閱讀,而不是全文一段不漏全部展示,我不知道報章報社雙互之間的協議,也是非我後所能及。

看電視新聞,除了一貫的亞記亞洲台和無記互動新聞台,我都有收看鳳凰衛視和有線電視的新聞報導,若有國際大新聞則兼看 BBC(World),CNN(International),和 AJE (Al Jazeera 半島的英語頻道),務求得到更多方面收集而來的更多資訊。



於國際社會雖云:新聞自由,新聞報導應該依據 facts 實況實據,據實報導,至於是否能辦得到呢?這是後話。而評論文章例如:社評 editorial 評論 review 就可以 take sided 有先決立場。我時常強調讀報、讀新聞、看新聞、還有讀歷史要多讀,若能多讀經由不同的源和 perspective 發表的報導與評論,經過消化了解後,然後“去蕪存菁“,最為重要。

在這資訊發達的時代,新聞是24小時每週七天年中無休,即時的才是新聞,之後再重覆的只可稱舊聞(歷史)。但不改的是,人們總愛在事後作出評論,不管是有先見之明,還是馬後礮,人總是愛繼續說三道四。不過我也慶幸,還能在特區繼續寫我的 blog。

明報還有另一篇外地評論摘要:“高鐵慘劇 掀動中產造反”英國《金融時報》8月4日評論版文章作者:David Pilling。Financial Times:”China crashes into a middle class revolt“ By David Pilling。各位網友們,有暇可以細讀精讀原裝全文和中譯的摘要,了解了解!


China's Wreckage Under Wraps WSJ.com
高鐵殘骸被埋 問責也被埋《華爾街日報》 新浪新聞網
China crashes into a middle class revolt FT.com
高鐵慘劇 掀動中產造反《金融時報》David Pilling 新浪新聞網



Haricot 微豆 said...

I notice that 【明報專訊】 put this at the beginning:

"... 外地評論摘要:美國《華爾街日報》8月3日 高鐵殘骸被埋 問責也被埋(WSJ:China's Wreckage Under Wraps)..."

So does it imply 明報 is not responsible for the positions of the translated Chinese article because 明報 is just the messenger (so don't shoot the messenger)?

Also, I quite agree with what you said: ".... 在這資訊發達的時代,新聞是24小時每週七天年中無休,即時的才是新聞,之後再重覆的只可稱舊聞(歷史)。但不改的是,人們總愛在事後作出評論,不管是有先見之明,還是馬後礮,人總是愛繼續說三道四。不過我也慶幸,還能在特區繼續寫我的 blog。...."

And I am happy to be able to read your blog :)

the inner space said...

HBB: 文中已經寫了:》WSJ 顯示這文是 Review and Outlook 是沒有處名的文章,也不是 Editorial 社評,我只可以理解成是 WSJ 華爾街日報 內部自己人寫的或是約稿,因為沒有處名,文責看來似是由 WSJ 肩負吧 。》

明報若只是轉載不是選擇性摘要譯出,應沒有文責! 不過,明報只是刊登評論摘要,而不是全文登出,又至於翻譯錯誤和有沒有斷章取義,這要看報社之間的 agreement了!