「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: ?

Friday, September 12, 2014



兩年前的九月,日本人不理中國暫時擱置 “釣魚台列島” 主權争議的睦鄰主張,單方面把日本人稱為 “尖閣諸島” 國有化,把中日邦交推至臨界點,完成解禁日本自衛隊的 “陽謀”。

去過日本自行遊,就要自己閱讀地圖,參看旅游資料,去擬定自己的行程,很多時候會見到城鄉市鎮地名前面加個 prefix,例如去到 “岐阜縣” 有;美濃太田,美濃川合,美濃加茂 。。。。。去到 “琵琶湖坢” 兩岸有:近江今津,近江八幡,近江舞子。。。。 到 四國島 的 “愛媛縣” 有:伊予北條,伊予橫田,伊予白滝 。。。。。這是怎麽由來呢? 容我在後面慢慢解釋。

請先看看下面是一幅日本古時地名 “令制國” 地圖,是 嗜悲 在 “日文維基百科” 找到的,上面没有他們所謂的 “尖閣諸島”,連如今的 冲繩、琉球、石垣,都是没有記載的。


無論 薩摩,伊勢,陸中,尾張,信濃,越後,美濃,近江,伊予,三河,備前,丹波 等等都是古代的地區名,把今時的鄉鎮名再加上古時舊地方原名稱在前面,就容易識別鄉鎮究竟在那裡。



而且日本全國有相同地名不足為奇,日本 modernization 開始建築鐵路,但為了識別不同就加上古時 “令制國” 名,猶其是新增鐵路沿線駅名:






到後來,日本有了 “新幹線”,新大阪,新橫濱,新神戶,新青森,等等駅名相繼出現,附近的社區也逐漸成形。再加上各地私鐵的鐵路例如: “近畿日本鐵道~近鐵” 有駅名:近鐵難波,近鐵郡山,近鐵奈良等等,地方名鐵路駅名就更多了。


我看不到琉球群島有日文古稱,顯然現今的琉球沖繩列島本就不屬於日本,它是在《馬關條約》後才成為日本殖民地,同樣 "台灣島" 也不是,但戰後日本人只歸還台灣島,戰後初期沖繩和琉球群島仍由美國佔領管轄。

至於爭論極大的 "釣魚台列島",在日文 維基百科 的 “令制國篇” 内地圖上沒有包括,至于 “琉球” 嘛在日人霸佔後,還是借用 “琉球” 自己本稱,因為本來就是不屬日本的地方。

那就更遑論 "釣魚台列島" 即日人所稱:"尖閣諸島",可見日本古代並未曾記載,就莽稱擁有列島的主權?根本日本人是在美國人背後撑腰,略奪中國領土和領海。

日本人愛竄改歷史,相信不久就可以見到 “尖閣諸島”,出現在古籍內也不出奇!他們還未記得改這幅 “日本令制國” 地圖。

日本令制國 維基百科

釣魚列島 (尖閣列島)

Wednesday, September 10, 2014



「Aesthetic」的翻譯 形容詞:
美的:aesthetic, esthetic 美學的: aesthetic, esthetic 審美的: aesthetic, esthetic 藝術的: aesthetic, artistic, esthetic。

Sekiyama Aika 關山藍果 唱
作詞:今井麻紀子 作曲:澤野弘之

Longing for you
day and in dream
I'm hoping you are here
and leading my way

You steers my road
anytime I need
If you walk away
I will follow you

Trying my love
With your secret gifts
you gave to me
I won't vain and succeed
it as your precious soul

Holding your hand
And I'm walking
through the all of the world
Carrying your wish like the Venus
in the deep/dim in sky

Aika Sekiyama 關山藍果 是一位日法混血兒,2006年時以歌曲《Aesthetic》出道。

【維基百科】Aesthetic is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty.

It is more scientifically defined as the study of sensory or sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste.

More broadly, scholars in the field define aesthetics as "critical reflection on art, culture and nature."

關山藍果 的 Aesthetic 本是日劇:醫龍 Team Medical Dragon 的插曲,每次動手術時都用來伴著主角們 “醫龍隊” venture to mission the impossible,到了後來的變成了主題曲。

經已拍了四季的 “醫龍隊 Team Medical Dragon” 剛剛在過去的週六在 “有線 劇集台” 播出第四季終集 Season Finale,朝田龍太郎 成功顆同 岡村征,一個做心臟手術 另一個做 開腦手術 respectively,救活了 朝田龍太郎 的 恩師 櫻井修三。

【維基百科】《醫龍-Team Medical Dragon-》(日語:医龍-Team Medical Dragon-)是改編自 乃木坂太郎 原作之同名漫畫的偶像電視劇。

2006 開始截至 2014年,此劇共推出四部,內容描述主角天才外科醫師 朝田龍太郎(坂口憲二飾)和他的醫療團隊 Team Medical Dragon(簡稱「Team Dragon」,又稱「醫龍小組」),不畏強權和腐敗的醫療體系,共同拯救病患。

坂口憲二 飾 朝田龍太郎,小池徹平 飾 伊集院登,稻森泉 飾 加藤晶,佐佐木藏之介 飾 藤吉圭介,阿部貞夫 飾 荒瀨門次,還有 水川麻美 飾 里原 美紀。


留意到 “Team Medical Dragon” 嗜悲 是從漫畫開始的,在 “manga park” 有英文譯本可以看到,不過因為自從有了 “真人版”,嗜悲 只會偶然讀讀,但也是興趣迥然 。。。。。。(為避免過份追看 嗜悲 是有需要割離的)

近日 嗜悲 又再 bookmarked 了 “Aesthetic” 成為 Playlist 中的其中一首,簡單的幾個音符,還有歌詞都是簡簡單單得令人容易接受。啊!簡單就是美 。。。。。。。。。。。。。喲!


記得幾個月前,梁太唐菁儀女士 怒罵 蔡子強 時的,各位可記起她的 ”Hand Gesture 手部語言“ 呢?

唐女士的手部動作原來叫做:Air Quotes,不過她用錯了,王偉雄教授:“特首夫人的 air quotes”,幫助抖正過來撥亂反正。

王教授文中又說明:Air Quotes 即是在空中做 quotation marks,諧音 scare quotes。 Scare quotes 是用引號來說明使用的字詞不是正常的意思,或是諷刺,或是反話,或是貶抑。雖然引號有單引號和雙引號之分,但無論是在美國還是英國(美國人較常用 air quotes),air quotes 都是「雙引號」 --- 不會只用左右食指,而是同時用食指和中指。

嗜悲 當時記起曾經在那裡看過呢?而且是雙手同時用食指和中指,做出 「雙引號」來表達某些意思。經過,多月來的挖掘腦海記憶深處,原來是在 “醫龍 Team Medical Dragon” 第二季中見過。

醫龍第二季 Season 2 是 2007年 10月在日本首播,來到香港 嗜悲 當時應該是在 2008年才看到的。劇中的反派兩人組:明真醫院的 野口賢雄(岸部一德 飾演)和 北洋醫院 的 片岡一美(內田有紀 飾演),就是常常在劇中亮起 “Air Quotes” 來表達某些議題。

右:明真醫院 的 野口賢雄(岸部一德 飾演)
左: 北洋醫院 的 片岡一美(內田有紀 飾演)

伊集院登(小田徹平 飾演)看到不明白,就問 木原毅彥 (池田鐡洋 飾演),後者就在紙上畫了 【 ” 】個 Quotation Mark 來解釋一番!梁太唐菁儀女士是否在 ”醫龍“ 中看過呢?

網上有很多途徑,可以重看 “醫龍 Team Medical Dragon2 第二季 全 11集,嗜悲 在此不贅矣!

不過,都算 嗜悲 這個 ”問題中年“ 鍥而不捨,想了幾個月後,卒之解答了心中的一個 【 ?】question mark 問號!

Manga Park:Team Medical Dragon Manga Park
日劇:醫龍4 Team Medical Dragon 4 Taiwan 緯來日本台
醫龍 Team Medical Dragon Fuji TV
日劇:醫龍隊 Team Medical Dragon 維基百科
特首夫人的 air quotes 魚之樂


Monday, September 08, 2014

存檔 Archive:肥彭 vs 懵董 談香港政改

存檔 Archive: 肥彭 vs 懵董 談香港政改

近日關于香港政改引來很多人 “討論”!

肥彭 has something to say 。。。。。
(please refer to my header)

Patten criticises UK over failure to act on Hong Kong reforms

【FT】Britain is honour bound to speak up for differences in Hong Kong By Chris Patten

When Beijing attacks MPs for commenting on the territory, it forgets the UK has treaty obligations, writes Chris Patten

The former British colony of Hong Kong has all the attributes of a liberal society except one: its people lack the ability to choose who governs them. The latest political convulsion in the territory has been caused by electoral arrangements proposed by the National People’s Congress, which would prevent democrats and others of whom China might disapprove from seeking election as chief executive in a vote of Hong Kong’s citizens.

Such vetting is more or less what happens in Iran. Sooner or later this plan, or a modification of it, will have to be voted on by Hong Kong’s legislature, and I hope a compromise can be found. The territory’s citizens remain remarkably moderate and responsible. It is not democracy that produces the sort of mass demonstrations we have recently witnessed but its denial.

I have expressed my agreement with Andrew Li Kwok-nang, the distinguished former Chief Justice, who has written that Beijing’s views on the status of the Hong Kong judiciary raise concerns about judicial independence and therefore the integrity of the rule of law. But in the 17 years since I left the territory at the end of my term as the last British governor, I have tried to avoid being drawn into the debate about democracy there, lest my intervention complicate matters.

On this occasion my comments are not directed principally to Beijing or Hong Kong’s democrats. What a former Hong Kong governor can more legitimately do is to invite an interrogation of Britain’s sense of honour. It may not be welcome to ministers, at a time when so many appallingly difficult international issues crowd their agenda, to remind them that we have moral responsibilities for what happens in Hong Kong.

The Joint Declaration under which the territory passed from British to Chinese rule guaranteed Hong Kong’s way of life for 50 years after 1997. Deng Xiaoping’s “one country, two systems” pledge is backed by an international treaty, lodged at the UN. As successive British governments have accepted, the UK has a continuing “moral and political obligation” to ensure that China respects its commitments.

When Chinese officials attack British MPs and others for commenting on developments in Hong Kong, they ignore the fact that Britain too has treaty obligations for 50 years, which reflect what our country has said and promised in the past. Failure to do as we pledged would clearly be dishonourable.

In the 1980s and 1990s, parliament was told that the development of democratic structures underpin the territory’s stability, prosperity and limited autonomy. No one envisaged that, 30 years after the Joint Declaration, a fair electoral system would still be beyond the horizon.

Sooner or later, I assume, the British government will comment on Beijing’s plan. This would not be a provocation but a duty. No one can seriously believe that this would have commercial consequences, or that such consequences should be an overriding concern when our honour is on the line. We have a huge stake in the wellbeing of Hong Kong, with a political system in balance with its economic freedom. I hope these questions will be resolved in a way that does not jeopardise the city’s future.

China’s ascent has been a bonus for the world. It is not a threat. Surprisingly, however, it has not yet been accompanied by an accretion of China’s soft power. The way in which Beijing handles Hong Kong’s aspirations will clearly affect that.

Yet my main appeal is to Westminster not China. 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.

But we did promise him democracy. We should go on making that point, ever so diplomatically. If not us, then who?

The writer was governor of Hong Kong between 1992 and 1997

明報翻譯成中文 。。。。。。。






我已經表達了我認同香港終審法院前首席法官李國能(Andrew Li Kwok-nang)的看法。他寫道,北京方面對於香港司法體系地位的觀點,令人擔憂司法獨立,進而擔憂法治的完好性。但在我結束自己末任香港總督任期、離開香港以來的17年裏,我一直試圖避免捲入有關香港民主的辯論,以免我的介入使問題復雜化。










結果英國外交部也作出回應 。。。。。






Foreign Office responds to Hong Kong reform plans

【UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office】An FCO spokesperson said:
We welcome the confirmation that China’s objective is for the election of Hong Kong’s Chief Executive through universal suffrage.

The UK’s position has always been that the detail of the constitutional package is for the Governments of Hong Kong and China and the people of Hong Kong to decide in line with the Basic Law.

While we recognise that there is no perfect model, the important thing is that the people of Hong Kong have a genuine choice and a real stake in the outcome.

We recognise that the detailed terms that the National People’s Congress has set for the 2017 election will disappoint those who are arguing for a more open nomination process.

We hope that the next period of consultation will produce arrangements which allow a meaningful advance for democracy in Hong Kong, and we encourage all parties to engage constructively in discussion to that end.

連 董建華 都不甘寂寞出來 has to say something 。。。。!
(please refer to my header again)

Full text of former Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa’s speech on Hong Kong’s political reform

【SCMP】The decision by the National People’s Congress Standing Committee a few days ago on the framework for the election of the chief executive has confirmed that from 2017 onward the people of Hong Kong will elect our chief executive by universal suffrage, fulfilling the collective aspiration of the people of Hong Kong. I fully support this decision, just as large numbers of Hong Kong people do.

At the same time, I observed many friends in the pan-democratic camp have reacted with anger and disappointment to the NPC decision. I understand how they feel. I understand how deeply and strongly felt those emotions are. This is why what I am going to say now also comes from deep within me.

In 1997, I was chosen chief executive by a selection committee composed of only 400 people. Subsequently, the committee was expanded from 400 to 800, and later from 800 to 1200. Each time, we took a significant step towards democracy.

By 2017, we will no longer be taking just another incremental step; we will be ushering Hong Kong into a new chapter in history, a grand chapter to be written collectively by the people of Hong Kong. This is because by then, some five million voters in Hong Kong will have a chance to cast their ballots. Come to think of it: of the 2.4 million families in Hong Kong, each will have at least one member eligible to vote.

Between 1997 and 2017, a short span of just 20 years, we have moved from having Britain parachute a governor into Hong Kong to having five million voters choosing their own leader. In the grand sweep of history, this is a glittering achievement. It represents the well-deserved fruits of our desire for democracy. It is also concrete proof of our nation’s positive response to our aspiration.

Today, on the eve of Hong Kong’s crucial development in our long history, on the verge of our going for the biggest political leap, how can we possibly choose to stand still? How can we let our march towards democracy stop and stall?

Five million voters personally picking their leader is not airy-fairy democracy. It is democracy real and substantial. What’s more, this is by no means democracy in its final form. If, after 2017, we desire to further improve our democratic system, there is clear mechanism within the Basic Law for us to do so.

Regardless of their political stance, Hong Kong people have demonstrated their political sensibility and maturity. Most are moderate and rational. There are outstanding talents on both sides of the political divide, and many of them are patriots with an abiding love for our city. In essence, anyone who are patriotic and love Hong Kong are free to win over the support of the 1,200 Nomination Committee members with their vision, political ideals, and proven record of service to our community, and seek nomination as a candidate in the 2017 CE election. The final choice of our leader rests with the five million voters.

Democracy doesn’t have a final destination, and to fight for democracy is far from being the whole story in improving people’s livelihood – which after all is the ultimate test of good governance. I appeal to people of all political stripes to come together, and turn negative sentiments into positive energy. Hand in hand, we will build a sound electoral arrangement on the basis of the foundation laid down by NPC.

I am resolutely opposed to Occupy Central because it is against the law. I have no doubt that many of those who are sympathetic towards Occupy Central are patriots and true-blue Hongkongers at heart. We may have our differences of views, but we are united by our desire to see our city succeed and prosper.

I do not approve to the call for students to boycott classes. But I believe the students are motivated to do so by their love of Hong Kong. They are idealistic and filled with passion. Many of us are parents. Our children deserve our understanding, care, and protection.

I therefore appeal to all teachers and parents to join together in protecting our young and their core values and to make sure that their studies are not disrupted. After all, they are the future of Hong Kong.

Hong Kong is our home. We have to work together. The only way out and the only way forward is through working together hand-in-hand, or otherwise, there will be no end to the bitter squabbles and paralysis.

For the sake of our next generation, let us turn our energy and creativity towards improvements for our electoral system. In two-and-a-half years’ time, five million Hong Kong citizens and all of our 2.4 million families will all have the final say on the choice of our leader. Let us make Hong Kong again our collective pride.

董建華 站立個多鐘頭說話,記者們急忙慰問 "脚痛" 近况。


國家領導人承認政制問題 回歸17年以來首次







增進了解建立互信 中央泛民應雙向而行


南華早報都有篇新聞報導 董建華 談政改的記者會。

【SCMP】Tung says Hong Kong will usher in a new chapter in history in 2017 written by the people of Hong Kong

Welcomes NPC framework, says election method for chief executive could change after 2017

“I appeal to people of all political stripes to come together and turn negative sentiments into positive energy”

Hong Kong's first chief executive Tung Chee-hwa has called on Hongkongers of "all political stripes" to cast aside their differences and work together to achieve universal suffrage.

The former shipping magnate said it would be democracy "real and substantial" for five million voters in the city to pick their leader in 2017, a claim disputed by critics who say the tougher-than-expected framework set by Beijing will deprive voters of a genuine choice of candidates.

In his first press conference since stepping down as chief executive in March 2005, Tung said it would be a "glittering achievement" for the chief executive to be elected by "one man, one vote" in 2017, 20 years after he was chosen as the city's first leader by a 400-strong selection committee.

"Between 1997 and 2017 - a short span of just 20 years - Hong Kong would have moved from having Britain parachute a governor into Hong Kong to having five million voters choosing their own leader," he said. "We will be ushering Hong Kong into a new chapter in history.

“If we come to a standstill this time, I don’t know when we can move forward again“ TUNG CHEE-HWA

"If we come to a standstill [on constitutional development] this time, I don't know when we can move forward again. That's why I came out today to make the appeal."

His rare comments on Hong Kong's affairs were widely seen as part of Beijing's publicity campaign to defend the decision by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on political reform.

Tung's remarks came a day after the last governor, Chris Patten, wrote in the Financial Times that Britain had a "moral and political obligation" to the city because it co-signed the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984. "We have a huge stake in the well-being of Hong Kong, with a political system in balance with its economic freedom," Patten wrote.

The framework endorsed by the committee on Sunday allows only two or three candidates to run. They will need approval from the majority of a 1,200-strong nominating committee. Methods for electing the committee, its composition and size will be "in accordance with" those of the election committee that decided the 2012 poll.

All 27 pan-democratic lawmakers vowed on Sunday to veto any government proposal to implement a "one man, one vote" election based on such a model.

During the press conference at the Office of Former Chief Executives, Tung said he noted many pan-democrats reacted with anger and disappointment to the NPC's decision.

"I understand how deeply and strongly felt those emotions are," he said.

But Tung, a vice-chairman of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, said: "Today, on the eve of Hong Kong's crucial development in our long history, on the verge of our going for the biggest political leap, how can we possibly choose to stand still? How can we let our march towards democracy stop and stall?"

Tung, 77, said the framework set down by the Standing Committee was "comparatively conservative" but also comparatively the best, citing the possible constitutional crisis that would be triggered if someone Beijing deemed unacceptable was elected. "If, after 2017, we desire to further improve our democratic system, there is a clear mechanism in the Basic Law for us to do so.

"I appeal to people of all political stripes to come together and turn negative sentiments into positive energy. Hand in hand, we will build a sound electoral arrangement on the basis of the foundation laid down by NPC."

Although he "resolutely opposed" Occupy Central, Tung said he had no doubt that many of those sympathetic towards the civil disobedience movement were patriots and "true-blue Hongkongers at heart".

He did not approve of calls for students to boycott classes. But he believed some were motivated to do so by a love for Hong Kong.

Tung's comments drew criticism, with Joseph Cheng Yu-shek, convenor of the Alliance for True Democracy, saying: "Hong Kong people can't accept a reform model without a democratic element."

Anson Chan Fang On-sang, who served as chief secretary under Tung, said under Beijing's model "it would be impossible for five million voters to have genuine choice", adding: "It would be 100 per cent fake democracy."

Britain is honour bound to speak up for Hong Kong By Chris Patten FT.COM
UK Foreign Office responds to Hong Kong reform plans gov.uk
Tung Chee-hwa’s speech on Hong Kong’s political reform SCMP
Tung Chee-hwa meeting with the press SCMP

直 普 篩 量 質